CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 May 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 61397/17 Recai KILIÇOĞLU against Turkey lodged on 3 July 2017 communicated on 15 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a civil servant transferred from his position in a state bank to another government agency on account of the privatisation of the former. His application concerns the calculation of his salary and adjustments to certain allowances in the aftermath of privatisation and in the light of the provisions of Law no. 4046. He complains under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention that the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 23   November 2009 rendered in his case, was inconsistent with that same court’s settled case-law (in particular, the leading decision of 12   May 2004, E.   2003/5342, K. 2004/2240). The applicant maintains in that respect that his submissions concerning the alleged inconsistency of case-law went unanswered before the relevant jurisdictions. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant further complains that as a result of divergence from settled case-law, the Supreme Administrative deprived him of his pecuniary rights related to his salary and allowances in the aftermath of privatisation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s allegation that the Supreme Administrative Court reached different conclusions in cases that were identical in fact and in law, 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 Hayati Çelebi and Others v. Turkey , no. 582/05, § 52, 9   February 2016, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no.   76943/11, §   116, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?   2.     Did the Supreme Administrative Court adequately state reasons on which it based its decision in the applicant’s case, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Emel Boyraz v. Turkey , no. 61960/08, §   75, 2   December 2014 and Hülya Ebru Demirel v. Turkey , no. 30733/08, §   51, 19   June 2018)? 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 (see the applicant’s submissions regarding the decisions delivered by the fifth division of the Supreme Administrative Court in cases E. 2003/4994, K. 2004/1980; 2003/5362; K.   2004/2571; 2003/6007, K. 2004/2243; 2003/6367, K.   2004/2567; 2004/875, 2004/2767; 2004/4196, K. 2004/4369; 2005/820, K. 2005/3632)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s property rights, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in the light of the different outcomes of similar proceedings (see mutatis mutandis , Ştefănică and Others v. Romania , no. 38155/02, §§ 41-42, 2 November 2010 and Albu and Others v. Romania , nos. 34796/09 and 63 others, § 47, 10   May 2012)?