CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 10 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sB706BD6C { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9A659E2E { width:118.41pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF ŞİMŞEK v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 60639/19)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 10 July 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Şimşek v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Gediminas Sagatys , President ,   Stéphane Pisani,   Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 November 2019. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr M. Gül, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 3.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicant complained of the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decisions. He also raised another complaint under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 6.     The applicant complained of the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decisions. He relied on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. 7.     According to the Court’s established case-law reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §   26, ECHR   1999‑I). Without requiring a detailed answer to every argument advanced by the complainant, this obligation presupposes that parties to judicial proceedings can expect to receive a specific and explicit reply to the arguments which are decisive for the outcome of those proceedings (see, among other authorities, Ruiz Torija v. Spain , 9 December 1994, §§   29-30, Series A no. 303‑A, and Xhoxhaj v. Albania , no. 15227/19, § 327, 9   February 2021). Moreover, in cases relating to interference with rights secured under the Convention, the Court seeks to establish whether the reasons provided for decisions given by the domestic courts are automatic or stereotypical (see, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017). 8.     Those principles relating to a right to a reasoned decision under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention have been applied in a number of Turkish cases (see, for example,   Emel Boyraz v. Turkey , no.   61960/08, §§   74-75, 2   December 2014; Deryan v. Turkey , no. 41721/04, §§ 35-42, 21 July 2015; Cihangir Yıldız v. Turkey , no. 39407/03, §§ 41-50, 17 April 2018;   Hülya Ebru Demirel v.   Turkey , no. 30733/08, §§ 48-52, 19 June 2018; Murat Akın v.   Turkey , no. 40865/05, §§ 41-43, 9   October 2018;   Pişkin v.   Turkey , no.   33399/18, §§ 147-50, 15 December 2020; and Korkut and Amnesty International Türkiye v. Türkiye , no. 61177/09, §§ 53-56, 9 May 2023). 9.     Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of those principles, the Court considers that the domestic courts failed in their duty to provide reasons for their decisions and did not address pertinent and important arguments raised by the applicant. The specific procedural failings are indicated in the appended table, and they prompt the Court to conclude that the applicant’s right to a reasoned court decision was not secured. 10.     This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINT 11.     The applicant also raised another complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. 12.     The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Pronina v. Ukraine, no. 63566/00, 18 July 2006 and Korkut and Amnesty International Türkiye , cited above, § 95), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaint concerning the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decisions admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible; Holds that this complaint discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the inadequate reasoning in court decisions; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Gediminas Sagatys   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decisions) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Subject matter of the domestic proceedings Key argument the court failed to address Date of the court decision Name of the court Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2] 60639/19   12/11/2019 Mustafa ŞİMŞEK 1982   The applicant’s request for reinstatement to his post following his dismissal within the scope of state of emergency legislation The reasons for the applicant’s dismissal. Particularly, the applicant’s key argument is that he was laid off from his position at a sub-supplier private company of the Ömerli Municipality without any reasons, explanation, investigation or an inquiry and that the domestic courts did not examine the grounds of the suspicion especially if they regarded him as having ties with FETÖ/PDY.   Gaziantep Court of Appeals 9th Civil Division dismissed his case mainly by stating that the applicant was laid off from work in accordance with the Emergency Law Decree without carrying out an individualised assessment in respect of the applicant and explaining what sort of information or grounds were given concerning the applicant’s affiliation with FETÖ/PDY. 05/02/2018, Ömerli Civil Court of First Instance (as Labour Court)   16/05/2018, Gaziantep Court of Appeals 9th Civil Division   16/05/2019, Turkish Constitutional Court   2,000 250   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.