CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 8 October 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9302/19 İsmail TOPÇU against Turkey lodged on 16 January 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the Court of Cassation reached different conclusions in identical cases, breaching the principle of legal certainty. The applicant maintains in that respect that his submissions concerning the alleged inconsistency of case-law went unanswered before the relevant jurisdictions. Lastly he submits that the Constitutional Court failed to give a remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s allegation that the Court of Cassation had reached different conclusions in cases that were identical, was the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention infringed (see Stoilkovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 29784/07, §§ 47-49, 18 July 2013)? 2.     In that connection, did the Turkish legal system provide for a mechanism to ensure consistency in the event of conflicting decisions in similar cases? (see Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no.   13279/05, §§ 49-58, 20 October 2011)? Bearing in mind that the rectification of a decision is not in principle available in labour disputes, was there any other mechanism to ensure consistency at the level of the Court of Cassation? 3.     Did the Court of Cassation adequately state reasons on which it based its decision in the applicant’s case, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Hülya Ebru Demirel v. Turkey , no. 30733/08, § 51, 19 June 2018 and Emel Boyraz v. Turkey , no. 61960/08, § 75, 2 December 2014)? In particular, did it respond to the applicant’s submissions concerning the different conclusions reached by its self-same division in cases that were identical in fact and in law?