CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 25 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFBAE5208 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s64DD921C { font-family:Arial; color:#010000 } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE03C66E7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA3F87297 { margin-left:-3.99pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s7B0B20EB { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sE6C34D38 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sED58883A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5504DC55 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9ECAA7DE { height:8.5pt } .s14C007DB { height:8.45pt } .sB5A00431 { height:7.1pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } SECOND SECTION CASE OF ONAT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications no. 61590/19 and six others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Inadequate judicial review of the dismissal of labourers, after declaration of a state of emergency, employed by private companies subcontracted by various municipal authorities, on the basis of their presumed links with illegal structures •   Relevant legislative decree placed no restrictions on judicial review conducted by the domestic courts following the dismissal of individuals • Domestic courts’ failure to assess the content and relevance of ongoing or completed criminal proceedings against the applicants in the context of their dismissals Art 6 § 2 • Presumption of innocence not breached by the labour courts’ decision that the existence of ongoing or completed criminal proceedings against the applicants could constitute valid grounds to terminate their employment on the basis of such presumed links   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 25 March 2025   FINAL   25/06/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Onat and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Jovan Ilievski,   Péter Paczolay,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Stéphane Pisani,   Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   61590/19; 23504/20; 23505/20; 23786/20; 25016/20; 26550/20 and 29728/20) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by seven Turkish nationals (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 in respect of all applicants and Article 8 in respect of all applicants except for the applicant in application no.   26650/20 and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 4 March 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicants’ dismissal, following the declaration of a state of emergency, from their employment as labourers by different private companies subcontracted by various municipal authorities in the south-east of Türkiye, as well as the subsequent judicial review of their dismissals by the labour courts. The applicants all complained of a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 –   and with the exception of the sixth applicant   – of Article   8 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     A list of the applicants is set out in Appendix I. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr   Hacı   Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Events of 2015 in south-east Türkiye 5 .     The Government considered that the escalation in fighting between Turkish security forces and armed terrorist groups starting from the summer of 2015, known as the “ditch incidents” ( hendek olayları ), was relevant to the overall context in the present case. Following a period of relative calm – owing to the peace process initiated in late 2012 to find a lasting, peaceful solution to the “Kurdish question” – the security situation in south-east Türkiye deteriorated in the summer of 2015 on account of the intensification of hostilities by illegal armed groups affiliated with the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). In addition to carrying out armed attacks, those armed groups resorted to other ways of disturbing social life and public order in the region, such as digging trenches, some of which were planted with explosives, and blocking roads with barricades in certain neighbourhoods (see Elçi v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 63129/15, § 4, 29 January 2015, and Selahattin Demirtaş v.   Turkey (no.   2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 28-41, 22 December 2020). According to the Government, the PKK had infiltrated municipalities and, through elected mayors, had used their logistical and financial resources for its illegal activities. By way of example, the Government noted that relatives of deceased PKK members had been employed in such municipalities; that municipal youth and women’s centres had been used to find recruits; that municipal funds had been used to finance the PKK; and that municipal service vehicles had been used in bomb attacks and for other logistical needs of the illegal organisation. Coup d’état attempt of 15 July 2016 6 .     The coup d’état attempt of 15 July 2016 and the declaration of a state of emergency is summarised in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye ([GC], no.   15669/20, §§ 10-17, 26 September 2023). The state of emergency remained in force from 21 July 2016 to 18 July 2018. 7.     During the state of emergency, the Council of Ministers passed several legislative decrees. One of those decrees, Legislative Decree no. 667 (see Pişkin v. Turkey , no. 33399/18, § 33, 15 December 2020), published in the Official Gazette on 23 July 2016, required all bodies answerable to a ministry to dismiss any staff considered to belong to or be affiliated or linked to ( üyeliǧi, mensubiyeti, iltisakı veya irtibatı ) terrorist organisations or to organisations, structures or groups which the National Security Council had found to be involved in activities prejudicial to the State’s national security. The applicants’ Dismissal and the reinstatement proceedings in the domestic courts 8.     After the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 667 on 23 July 2016, public entities conducted security assessments on the basis of which they requested private subcontractor companies to dismiss employees whom they considered to be members of, or affiliated or linked to, a terrorist organisation. 9.     As a result, on various dates indicated in Appendix II, the private subcontractor companies that employed the applicants served notice on them, dismissing them from their jobs with immediate effect. 10.     The applicants brought proceedings in the labour courts seeking their reinstatement. They argued that their dismissal had not been based on valid grounds within the meaning of the Labour Code (Law no. 4857) and that the procedural provisions set out in the Code had not been observed. They therefore demanded their reinstatement and compensation equivalent to four months’ wages. They added that should their employers decide not to reinstate them, they should be paid compensation equivalent to eight months’ wages. 11.     During the proceedings, the labour courts requested documents from the private subcontractors and the municipal employers in question regarding the termination of the applicants’ contracts, and conducted an investigation of its own motion through the National Judicial Network Project (UYAP) by requesting information from the relevant public institutions as to whether there had been a criminal investigation and prosecution that could have justified the applicants’ dismissal. The labour courts dismissed the cases on the dates indicated in Appendix II on the basis of the information gathered. Only in the case of the applicant Doham Onat (application no. 61590/19) did the labour court hear witnesses, who testified that they had not seen the applicant engage in any terrorist propaganda; however, no separate assessment of their testimony was made by the labour court in question. 12 .     The common elements that run through the reasoning of the labour courts may be summarised in the following manner. Firstly, the labour courts considered that the subject matter of the dispute was governed by Law   no.   4857, but that the provisions of Legislative Decree no. 667, which provided for the immediate dismissal of employees considered to belong to or be affiliated or linked to illegal structures, constituted valid grounds for the termination of the labour relationship, in particular on the basis of “suspicion”. The courts considered in that connection that the measures provided for by the Legislative Decree in question were required by the state of emergency and were aimed at eliminating the presence of terrorist structures in public institutions, mainly the FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”) but also the PKK, Daesh, DHKP/C (People’s Revolutionary Liberation Party/Front) and any other organisation posing a threat to national security. For that reason, Legislative Decree no.   667 did not limit the termination of an employment contract to those who had been convicted of the criminal offence of “membership of a terrorist organisation” but it was also sufficient for the connection to entail being affiliated to or in contact with such illegal structures. The labour courts also considered that such affiliation or connection did not have to be proved ( subüta ermek ) and that it was sufficient for an employer to arrive at such a conclusion. According to the labour courts, employers were free to arrive at that conclusion without there being an assessment of whether the employee in question had committed an offence. 13.     Concerning the individual assessments of the applicants’ dismissals and whether there were objective grounds giving rise to a suspicion that they belonged to or were affiliated or associated with terrorist organisations or structures, the labour courts concluded the following. 14 .     In the proceedings brought by Doham Onat (application no.   61590/19), the labour court noted that he had been detained and arrested in 2003 in connection with carrying out activities on behalf of an illegal organisation and that he had been released without charge. In 2010 he had been investigated for using threats to discourage the public from voting but no charges had been brought against him for lack of evidence. Lastly, the labour court noted that he had been taken into police custody for allegedly chanting slogans in support of the leader of the PKK but that he had been released by the public prosecutor. 15.     In the proceedings brought by Muhittin Duymak (application no.   23504/20), the labour court noted that, at the time, he was being tried by a criminal court on the charge of being a member of an armed terrorist organisation, and that it had been reasonable for his employer to dismiss him on account of a suspicion of contact or affiliation with a terrorist organisation. The labour court did not state the date and nature of those criminal proceedings against the applicant in its decision. The Government submitted that the applicant had been charged with the offence of membership of such an organisation on 10 January 2012 and that the Malatya Criminal Assize Court had convicted him of that offence and sentenced him to six years and ten months’ imprisonment. At the time of their observations, they noted that his conviction was not yet final. The Government also submitted that on 31   May 2016 an investigation had been initiated in respect of the applicant in connection with alleged membership of an armed organisation but on 23   January 2018 the public prosecutor in charge of that investigation had decided not to prosecute him. 16 .     In the proceedings brought by Zülküf Özoğul (application no.   23505/20), it appears from the decision of the labour court in question that it considered his dismissal on the basis of Legislative Decree no. 667 to have been justified because he had been charged with the offence of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation in the context of an investigation in 2012, and that on 8 July 2012 the criminal court had decided to suspend his prosecution subject to a probation period. 17 .     In the proceedings brought by Kenan Yıldırım (application no.   23786/20), the labour court noted, without providing details of dates, that he had been acquitted by a criminal court because he had not committed the acts which had formed the basis of the charge of membership of an armed organisation. The Regional Labour Court upheld that finding and noted that that fact constituted valid grounds within the meaning of the Labour Code and Legislative Decree no. 667. In their observations, the Government noted that the applicant had been acquitted on 14 April 2018 in proceedings based on an indictment dated 7 November 2017. 18.     In the proceedings brought by Abdullah Bilen (application no.   25016/20), the labour court noted that he was being tried by a criminal court for disseminating propaganda in favour of a criminal organisation. According to the labour court, the fact that there were criminal proceedings pending against him was sufficient for his employer to have dismissed him on the basis of a suspicion of being affiliated or connected to a terrorist organisation. In their observations the Government submitted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant mentioned by the labour court had been terminated on 3 April 2018 with a decision to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment. Moreover, the Government noted that the applicant had previously been charged with drug use, and that those proceedings had also ended with the suspension of pronouncement of the judgment on 14 January 2016. 19 .     In the proceedings brought by Ahmet İlaslan (application no.   26550/20), the labour court noted that he had been investigated in connection with the funeral of an alleged terrorist which had taken place on 16   September 2015 and during which, along with other participants, he had allegedly chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and had unfurled banners while driving a municipal funeral vehicle. The public prosecutor had decided not to prosecute the applicant for his involvement in the funeral, noting that his acts did not constitute the elements of a crime, and also that he had not engaged in any act of violence or otherwise incited violence or resistance. The labour court noted that the municipality that had requested the applicant’s dismissal had relied on a breach of trust and loyalty on account of those events, and that this could constitute valid grounds for dismissal. 20 .     In the proceedings brought by Abdullah Bekis (application no.   29728/20), the labour court upheld his dismissal, finding it to have been based on valid grounds and noting that the case file contained documents and information about a criminal complaint lodged on 11 February 2017 against the applicant by another public entity in connection with an allegation that he had disseminated propaganda in favour of the PKK and had been connected to illegal structures of that kind. The labour court’s decision did not contain any details as to how those criminal proceedings had ended. However, in their observations, the Government submitted that the applicant had been convicted on 14 July 2017 of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation but that the Criminal Assize Court had decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment. 21.     On various dates, the applicants lodged individual applications with the Constitutional Court, complaining, inter alia , of a violation of their right to a fair trial, of their right to the presumption of innocence and – with the exception of the applicant Ahmet İlaslan – of their right to respect for their private life. They argued that they had been portrayed as members of a terrorist organisation on the basis of conclusions reached entirely by State authorities. The labour courts in turn had accepted the assessment of those authorities without any real scrutiny and had deemed it sufficient for the purposes of Legislative Decree no. 677. The applicants, who complained of a violation of their right to respect for their private life, argued that their dismissals on the basis of the Legislative Decree carried a lifetime prohibition on working in the civil service, and that the assignment of a specific dismissal code in their social security record to the effect that they had been dismissed by virtue of a state-of-emergency decree had a stigmatising effect on their reputation, preventing them from finding work in the private sector. 22.     On various dates the Constitutional Court dismissed the applications by way of summary decisions. In doing so, it reclassified the applicant’s complaints and examined them in the light of the right to a fair trial and the right to work. It declared them inadmissible – those concerning the right to a fair trial as being manifestly ill-founded, and those concerning the right to work as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. compensation proceedings lodged by some of the applicants 23 .     In their observations, the Government submitted that the applicants Doham Onat, Muhittin Duymak and Kenan Yıldırım had subsequently initiated proceedings with a view to seeking severance and length-of-service pay from their employer following the termination of their contracts on valid grounds. The Government noted, in the case of the first two of those applicants, that mediation efforts had failed, and that the other applicant had brought proceedings directly in the labour courts. 24 .     In any event, the Government noted that the labour courts had accepted their claims. The proceedings in respect of Doham Onat had become final and he had received 37,089 Turkish liras in total for severance, length-of-service pay and other entitlements, in connection with the termination of his contract for valid grounds. The proceedings in respect of the other two applicants were pending before the regional labour courts at the time of the submission of the Government’s respective observations. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 25.     The relevant provisions of the Turkish Constitution, Legislative Decree no. 667 and the Labour Code are set out in Pişkin (cited above, §§   32-37). 26.     Turkish labour regulations, with the exception of the rules governing the status of civil servants, provide that an employment contract may be terminated on “valid grounds” or “just grounds” as set out in the Labour Code. In the case of termination of an employment contract on valid grounds, the former employee is entitled to severance and length-of-service pay, whereas there is no such entitlement in cases where a contract is terminated on just grounds (see Pişkin , cited above, § 35). 27.     Furthermore, an employee who is dismissed may bring reinstatement proceedings before a labour court, challenging the grounds of his or her dismissal. Should the labour courts find that the dismissal was not based on valid or just grounds, they will order the employer either to reinstate the employee to his or her previous position with back pay (up to four months’ wages) or to pay him or her compensation for unjustified termination, the amount of which will be specified in the judgment. 28 .     Section 18 of the Mediation in Civil Disputes Act (Law no.   6325) provides that the parties are prohibited from bringing an action in respect of issues agreed on as part of a mediation procedure. 29 .     Moreover, section 3 of the Labour Courts Act, which entered into force on 1 January 2018, makes it mandatory to request mediation before bringing reinstatement or compensation proceedings before the labour courts. Labour courts are therefore required to reject any case which has been lodged without first seeking mediation. 30.     Suspension of the pronouncement of a judgment is governed by Article   231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the relevant paragraphs of which read as follows at the relevant time: “... (5)   If the accused has been convicted on the charges against him and ordered to pay a fine or sentenced to imprisonment for a period of less than two years, the court may decide to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment ... The suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment means that the judgment shall not bear any legal consequences for the offender. (6)   A decision to suspend the pronouncement of a judgment may be issued provided that: (a)   the offender has never been found guilty of an intentional offence; (b)   the court is convinced, taking into account the offender’s personal traits and his behaviour during the proceedings, that there is little risk of any further offence being committed; [and] (c)   the damage caused to the victim or to society is redressed by way of restitution or compensation. ... (8)   If the pronouncement of the judgment is suspended, the offender shall be kept under supervision for the following five years. ... (10)   If the offender does not commit another wilful offence and abides by the obligations of the supervision order, the judgment [whose] pronouncement has been suspended shall be cancelled and the case discontinued. (11)   If the offender commits another wilful offence or acts in violation of the obligations of the supervision order, the court shall impose the sentence. Nevertheless, the court may evaluate the offender’s situation and may decide that ... up to half of the total sentence shall not be executed. If the conditions so permit, the court may also suspend the execution of [any] imprisonment or commute it to other optional measures. (12)   An objection to the decision to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment may be lodged.” PRACTICE OF THE DOMESTIC COURTS Case-law of the Constitutional Court 31 .     In addition to the decisions of the Constitutional Court in the cases of Mehmet Akif Günder (no. 2018/4268), Emin Arda Büyük (no.   2017/28079), Berrin Baran Eker (no. 2018/23568) and C.A.(3) (no. 2018/10286), the summaries of which may be found in Pişkin (cited above, §§ 39-40), the Government further referred to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 14   September 2021 in the case of Reşat Kıran (no. 2018/35972) . In that case the applicant had complained that his right to a fair trial and right to the presumption of innocence had been violated because his dismissal on grounds of a suspicion had been found to have been justified by the courts on account of a previous conviction and investigation. The applicant in question had argued that neither during the period of his employment nor at the time of his dismissal had he been subject to a criminal prosecution that could justify his dismissal. The Constitutional Court dismissed both of his complaints as being manifestly ill-founded, finding that the labour courts’ assessment to the effect that a previous investigation or conviction could constitute grounds for suspicion of affiliation to a terrorist organisation had been factually and legally relevant in the case. The Constitutional Court noted that the labour courts’ decisions had not contained any language giving the impression that they had regarded the applicant as guilty of a criminal offence. Moreover, in the case of Fatma Nakçi (no. 2021/33217) which concerned the dismissal of an applicant by a private sub-contractor, the domestic courts justified the applicant’s dismissal on the basis of her presumed links to a terrorist organisation by referring to a previous criminal investigation and pending criminal proceedings which had ended in non-prosecution and acquittal respectively. The Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial because the trial courts had failed to assess the content and relevance of those criminal proceedings in the context of the applicant’s dismissal and had merely referred to the existence of the criminal investigations and proceedings in their reasoning to justify the dismissal. In that regard, the domestic courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons as to the events and facts which had led to the breakdown of the relationship of trust between the applicant and the employer (see in particular paragraphs 43-46 of the decision). 32.     Lastly, the Government noted that in a large number of cases the Constitutional Court had applied the principles it had developed in the Berrin Baran Eker and Emin Arda Büyük cases, and had found violations of Article   6 of the Convention where the labour courts had upheld dismissals solely on the basis of suspicion on the part of an employer without examining the factual elements relating to applicants’ situation. Case-law of the Court of Cassation provided by the Government 33.     In a labour dispute concerning a dismissal on the basis of a past conviction, in which a railway employee had asked the labour courts to declare the dismissal unlawful, the Court of Cassation held that an employer could dismiss an employee on the basis of a suspicion if that suspicion was justified by serious, significant and concrete events resulting in a breach of trust. According to the Court of Cassation, there was information in the case file about circumstances and events that had formed the basis of a strong objective suspicion held by the employer. That information concerned the increase in terrorist incidents in the region, the targeting of railways where the applicant worked and the applicant’s past conviction for a terrorist offence, all of which had made it intolerable for the employer to continue the employment relationship (decision of 22 October 2007, E.   2007/16878, K.   2007/30923). 34.     In another case, the Court of Cassation held that where a dismissal was based on a suspicion, that suspicion had to be linked to a criminal offence or to a serious breach of an obligation where it had not been proved that the employee had breached that obligation but where specific elements were nonetheless present. The Court of Cassation found that in order for a dismissal based on suspicion to be valid, there had to be a strong suspicion based on objective events and facts that were capable of breaching the trust between an employer and an employee. Nevertheless, the employer must make every effort to clarify the specific event which had given rise to the suspicion and to seek the employee’s views (decision of 16 March 2009, E.   2008/17012, K. 2009/6827 ). 35.     In a case involving the dismissal of an employee from a public institution on the basis of a suspicion in the aftermath of the attempted coup of 15 July 2016, the Court of Cassation found that the trial court’s examination had been insufficient. The respondent employer had not submitted to the trial court all the evidence on which the dismissal had been based. The trial courts, in turn, had not verified whether there existed concrete evidence which was sufficiently strong to justify the suspicion. In that connection, the trial court should have clarified whether the dismissal had been based on just or valid grounds by requesting the respondent employer to provide all the evidence on which the dismissal had been based, by seeking information from the judicial authorities, security and intelligence services as to whether the applicant had had any connection, contact or affiliation with a terrorist organisation, by hearing the parties’ witnesses, if any, and by then deciding the case on the basis of the evidence obtained (decision of 26   September 2017, E. 2017/38645, K.   2017/19303) . 36 .     In a case concerning a dismissal on the basis of section 4 of Legislative Decree no. 667, the Court of Cassation found that the grounds for dismissal on the basis of a suspicion had been met. It held that the evidence in the case file – which had consisted of information about the applicant’s educational background, in particular the private schools he had attended which were considered to be affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY; his membership of the board of the alumni association of one of those schools; and the public prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute him for terrorism-related offences – had been sufficient for that purpose (decision of 3 July 2019, E.   2019/1589, K.   2019/14951) . Lastly, the Court of Cassation found a dismissal to be valid in another similar case, holding that being a member of associations which had been shut down pursuant to various legislative decrees and making transactions with Bank Asya after the events of 17 to 25 December 2013, constituted concrete facts demonstrating an affiliation, connection or links with the FETÖ/PDY organisation (decision of 1 October 2019, E.   2019/6779; K.   2019/17755). THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 37.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly. ALLEGED ABUSE OF THE RIGHT OF APPLICATION 38.     The Government argued that the complaints introduced by the applicants Doham Onat, Muhittin Duymak and Kenan Yıldırım under Article   6 of the Convention amounted to an abuse of their right of individual application because they had not informed the Court of important facts regarding the compensation proceedings (see paragraphs 23-24 above). 39.     The Court notes that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application if, inter alia , it was knowingly based on untrue facts with a view to deceiving the Court (see X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no.   22457/16, § 145, 2 February 2021, and G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v.   Italy   [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 172, 28 June 2018). The submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of individual application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v.   Switzerland   [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014). The same applies where important new developments have occurred during the proceedings before the Court and where, despite being expressly required to do so by Rule   47 § 7 of the Rules of Court, the applicant has failed to disclose that information to the Court, thereby preventing it from ruling on the case in full knowledge of the facts (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia , no.   798/05, §   63, 15 September 2009, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v.   Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 97, ECHR 2012). Even in such cases, the applicant’s intention to mislead the Court must be established with sufficient certainty (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano , § 97, and Gross , § 28, both cited above). 40.     The Court observes that when an employee whose contract is governed by the provisions of the Labour Code is dismissed, he or she may seek reinstatement before the labour courts provided that certain conditions relating to the nature and the duration of the contract and the nature of the workplace are met. Furthermore, in cases where dismissal took place without the payment of severance and length-of-service pay, an employee may bring compensation proceedings. According to the Government, an action seeking reinstatement is a declaratory action ( tespit davası ) capable of establishing the contract termination regime (valid grounds or just grounds). Thus, in practice the amounts payable in respect of severance pay and length-of-service indemnity could be claimed by means of separate proceedings before the labour courts (see also Pişkin v. Turkey , no. 33399/18, § 36, 15   December 2020 ). 41.     The Court further notes that mediation became mandatory as of 1   January 2018 for those wishing to pursue claims with respect to reinstatement or compensation, and that only when mediation fails can a labour court examine such an action (see paragraph 29 above). 42.     In the present case, the Court notes that the applicants Doham Onat, Muhittin Duymak and Kenan Yıldırım applied to the labour courts seeking compensation for severance and length-of-service pay after the labour courts had determined in reinstatement proceedings that their dismissal had been justified but constituted “valid grounds” as opposed to “just grounds” within the meaning of the Labour Code. 43.     The Court observes that the reinstatement proceedings which form the subject matter of the present case served a different legal purpose from that of the compensation proceedings in question. Whereas in the reinstatement proceedings, the applicants sought a declaration that their dismissal had been unlawful and therefore an order to be reinstated to their positions, in the compensation proceedings they sought severance and length-of-service pay following the labour courts’ rejection of their reinstatement claim and the classification of their dismissal as having been on “valid grounds”. Since the applicants’ complaint before the Court concerns the alleged unlawfulness of their dismissal and the manner in which the domestic courts had evaluated the evidence in connection with previous criminal proceedings, the Court cannot agree with the Government that the applicants’ failure to inform the Court of the subsequent proceedings should be viewed as an attempt on the part of those applicants to conceal from the Court important information relevant to the assessment of the case. The Court further notes that the situation of the applicants is different from the one examined in Şeker v.   Turkey ((dec.), no. 30330/19, §§   21-22, 7   September 2021), where the failure of that applicant to inform the Court – while his application was pending before it – of the content and the terms of the mediation agreement he had concluded with his former employer was found to be an abuse of the right of individual application, especially when viewed in the light of section   18 of Law no. 6325 (see paragraph 28 above). 44.     It follows that the Government’s preliminary objection in this regard must be dismissed. NOTICE OF DEROGATION by TÜRKİYE 45.     The Government requested that the applicants’ complaints be examined in the light of the notice of derogation transmitted to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 21 July 2016 under Article 15 of the Convention, which provides: “1.     In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law. 2.     No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision. 3.     Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.” 46.     The Government submitted that having availed itself of its right of derogation to the Convention pursuant to Article 15, Türkiye had not infringed the provisions of that instrument. In that connection they stated that there had been a public emergency threatening the life of the nation on account of the risks arising out of the attempted military coup and that the measures taken by the national authorities in reaction to that emergency had been rendered strictly necessary by the situation. 47.     The Court refers to its judgment in the case of Mehmet Hasan Altan v.   Turkey (no. 13237/17, § 93, 20 March 2018), where it noted that the attempted military coup had revealed the existence of a “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” within the meaning of the Convention. As to whether the measures taken in the present case were strictly required by the exigencies of the situation and consistent with Türkiye’s other obligations under international law, the Court considers it necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints on the merits and will do so below (see, for a similar approach, Pişkin , cited above, § 59). ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 48.     The applicants complained that the judicial review by the domestic courts of their dismissals had been ineffective and argued that the labour courts had infringed their right to the presumption of innocence since, in justifying their dismissal, they had referred to criminal proceedings or investigations which had taken place prior to the attempted coup and which had ended with a final acquittal or a final decision not to prosecute. They relied in substance on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “1.     In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law... 2.     Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. ...” 49.     The Government contested that argument. Admissibility Applicability of Article 6 § 2 (a)    General principles 50.     Relying on the Court’s findings in Pişkin (cited above, § 110), the Government argued that Article 6 § 2 did not apply in its first aspect to the reinstatement proceedings in the labour courts in the applicants’ case. Regarding the second aspect of Article 6 § 2, the Government submitted that the applicants could not demonstrate that a link existed between the prior criminal proceedings and the decisions of the labour courts. 51.     The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 2 safeguards the right to be “presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. In the context of a criminal trial, it acts as a procedural guarantee, imposing requirements in respect of, inter alia , the burden of proof, legal presumptions of fact and law, the privilege against self‑incrimination, pre-trial publicity, and premature expressions, by the trial court or by other public officials, of a defendant’s guilt (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 93, ECHR   2013, with references therein). However, in keeping with the need to ensure that the right guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 is practical and effective, the Court has, over time, developed a “second aspect” to the presumption of innocence, which comes into play after the criminal proceedings have concluded, either with an acquittal or a discontinuance ( see Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 32483/19 and 35049/19, § 102, 11 June 2024). 52.     Moreover, the Court reiterates that the principle of the presumption of innocence is not limited to a procedural safeguard in criminal matters: its scope is broader and requires that no representative of the State should say that a person is guilty of an offence before his or her guilt has been established by a court (see Konstas v. Greece , no. 53466/07, § 32, 24 May 2011). In that connection, the presumption of innocenc