CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 6 January 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 2437/08 Zeliha Eylem CAN against Turkey lodged on 4 January 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Zeliha Eylem Can, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Adıyaman. She is represented before the Court by Mr Y. Alataş, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarized as follows. On 17 October 1999 the applicant succeeded in an exam in order to become a public employee. On an unspecified date she was informed by the State Personnel Department attached to the Prime Minister’s office that she had been appointed to the post of security guard in the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ ( Türkiye Elektrik Dağıtım A. Ş. – Turkey’s Electric Distribution S. A. ) a state-run electricity company. On 4 July 2000 TEDAŞ informed the applicant that she would be appointed to the post in question once she had obtained the necessary documents and applied in person to the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ. On 4 September 2000 TEDAŞ sent a letter to the applicant stating that she could not be appointed to the post in question as she did not fulfill the requirement of “ having completed military service ”, a duty which is fulfilled only by men in Turkey. On 20 January 2001 the applicant lodged an administrative action against TEDAŞ requesting annulment of TEDAŞ’s administrative decision not to appoint her. On 28 November 2001 the Ankara Administrative Court annulled the TEDAŞ’s administrative decision. The court considered that being a “male” was not a requirement for the post. On an unspecified date, in line with the administrative court’s judgment, the applicant was recruited by TEDAŞ. On 30 January 2002 TEDAŞ appealed against the first-instance court’s judgment and requested the stay of its execution. On 2 May 2002 the 12 th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court decided to stay execution of the first-instance court’s judgment. On an unspecified date, in line with the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision, the applicant was removed from the post. On 21 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the first-instance court’s judgment. The High Court considered that given that there was a requirement of “ having completed military service ”, the post was reserved for “male” candidates only. On 30 December 2004 the first-instance court, complied with the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court and rejected the applicant’s request for annulment of the administrative act of TEDAŞ against her appointment. On 7 May 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 30 December 2004. On 9 July 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment was notified to the applicant. COMPLAINT Relying on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which prohibits discrimination against women in the field of employment, the applicant contends that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Are Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention applicable in the present case?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of her sex, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8, on account of the refusal of the domestic authorities to appoint her to the post of security officer?