CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 décembre 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; 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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF43EBB0E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s33B52106 { width:126.74pt; 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 } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 SAYINYİĞİT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 53256/19 and 2 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 December 2025     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sayınyiğit and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Stéphane Pisani , President ,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 November 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decisions. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained of the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decisions. They relied, expressly or in substance, 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;   Korkut and Amnesty International Türkiye v. Türkiye , no. 61177/09, §§ 53-56, 9 May 2023; and Onat and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 61590/19 and 6 others, § 71, 25   March 2025). 9.     Reviewing the facts of the present cases 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 applicants. The specific procedural failings are indicated in the appended table, and they prompt the Court to conclude that the applicants’ right to a reasoned court decision was not secured. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decisions; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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 11 December 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Stéphane Pisani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decisions) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Subject matter of the domestic proceedings Key argument the court failed to address Date of the court decision Name of the court Turkish Constitutional Court decision Amount awarded for non ‑ pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     53256/19 27/09/2019 Mehmet SAYINYİĞİT 1976   İsmail Güler Van The applicant’s request for reinstatement to his post following his dismissal on the grounds of suspicion of affiliation with a terror organisation. The reasons for the applicant’s dismissal. Particularly, the applicant stated that there was no fault attributable to him for the termination of his employment contract, and that the employer did not give any concrete event or issue which led to his dismissal.   The Labour Court dismissed the case mainly by stating that the applicant was laid off from work because he was believed to be affiliated with a terror organisation or a group that is understood to be acting against the national security according to a list that was sent from the State of Emergency Bureau to his employer, and that there were investigations against the applicant. It is observed that the Labour Court did not carry out an individualised assessment in respect of the applicant and explain what sort of information or grounds were given concerning the applicant’s affiliation with a terror organisation, or the nature and the status of the investigations that were initiated against the applicant.   31/05/2018, Van 1st Labour Court   25/10/2018, Erzurum Regional Court of Appeals 6th Civil Division Decision date: 02/09/2019   Notification date: 15/09/2019 2,000 250     27097/20 30/06/2020 Hüseyin TİMTİK 1970   Enver Erdal Şimşek Tunceli The applicant’s request for reinstatement to his post following his dismissal on the grounds of suspicion of affiliation with a terror organisation. The reasons for the applicant’s dismissal. Particularly, the applicant stated that he did not have any affiliation/ties with any terror organisation, and that no concrete evidence was included in his file to prove otherwise.   The Labour Court dismissed the case mainly by stating that the applicant was laid off from work because he was believed to be affiliated with a terror organisation or a group that is understood to be acting against the national security, 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 a terror organisation.   11/08/2018 Tunceli Court of First Instance (acting as the Labour Court)   01/11/2018 Erzurum Regional Court of Appeal   20/11/2019 Constitutional Court Decision date: 20/11/2019   Notification date: 21/11/2019 2,000 250     59893/21 29/11/2021 Mustafa Özgür MUTLU 1973   Ahmet Akgül Ankara The applicant’s request for reinstatement to his post following his dismissal on the grounds of suspicion of affiliation with FETÖ/PDY. The reasons for the applicant’s dismissal. Particularly, the applicant’s key argument is that he did not have any ties with any terror organisations and that the domestic courts should examine the employer’s grounds for their suspicion about the applicant regarding his affiliation with FETÖ/PDY.   While the Istanbul 4th Labour Court accepted the applicant’s reinstatement lawsuit, its decision was quashed by the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court dismissed the case mainly by stating that the employer had the right to terminate the contract of its employees on the basis of their suspicion concerning their employees’ affiliation with FETÖ/PDY. The Regional Court of Appeals, and the Court of Cassation, did not carry out an individualised assessment in respect of the applicant and explain what sort of information or grounds were given concerning the applicant’s affiliation with FETÖ/PDY.   09/02/2017, Istanbul 4th   Labour Court   29/03/2018, Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals 27th Civil Division   17/04/2019, Court of Cassation 9th Civil Division Decision date: 30/06/2021   Notification date: 05/07/2021 2,000 250   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.