CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9167BAAD { font-family:Arial; color:#0d0d0d } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 5 September 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43868/06 Ekrem TAŞÇI against Turkey lodged on 27 October 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Ekrem Taşçı, is a Turkish national, who was born in   1971 and lives in Ankara. He is represented before the Court by his wife, Ms M. Taşçı. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was a non-commissioned officer in the Turkish army. On 10 March 1994 he went under treatment on account of his physiological illness. His sick leave was prolonged until 24 February 1995. On 18 January 1995 while he was still on sick leave, a search was conducted at his home. During the search, many guns and ammunition were found. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against him for illegal possession at his home of guns and ammunition which belonged to the army. In the course of the criminal proceedings, on 7 June 1995 he was dismissed from the army on disciplinary grounds. As the applicant was suffering from a serious mental illness (schizophrenia), on 29 May 1998 the trial court discontinued the proceedings against him. The court also ordered him to be treated in a hospital. On 23 June 2003 the applicant’s wife, acting as his legal guardian, applied to the Supreme Military Administrative Court and requested the annulment of her husband’s dismissal from the army. She also requested the payment of the applicant’s ordinary salaries with interest which he as deprived of on account of criminal proceedings that gave rise to the dismissal of the applicant from the Army. On 20 December 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court, composed of five members, including three military judges and two military officers, annulled the dismissal and decided that the applicant should retire due to ill health. The amount of the retirement he was granted was considerably less than his ordinary salary. The Supreme Military Administrative Court also granted the applicant a disability pension with interest running from the date of dismissal from the army. The applicant’s wife appealed against the judgment as she was requesting that the applicant receive his ordinary salary which he was deprived of because of the alleged unfair criminal proceedings against him. On 18 April 2006 the applicant’s rectification request was rejected by the Supreme Military Administrative Court. On 25 September 2006 outstanding retirement benefits, with interest, were paid into the applicant’s bank account. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Military Administrative Court which examined his case cannot be considered as independent or impartial. In this respect, he maintains that the two military officers who sit on the bench remain under the hierarchy of the military authorities and do not enjoy the same judicial guarantees as the other military judges.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Could the Supreme Military Administrative Court which examined the applicant’s claims be considered as independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, the Government are requested to inform the Court as to whether the military officers who sit on the bench of the Supreme Military Administrative Court remain subject to military discipline and assessment reports during their term of office? Furthermore, do the military officers, who according to the legislation could be appointed as judges for a term of maximum of four years, be removed from their post before the end of their term of office?