CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 août 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 23 August 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 61590/19 Daham ONAT against Turkey and 14 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 August 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the termination of the applicants’ employment contracts on account of their alleged links with a terrorist organisation on the basis of the simplified dismissal procedure as set out in the emergency legislative decree no. 667. During the judicial review process, the labour courts relied on the applicants’ (i) previous convictions (in applications nos.   23459/20, 23503/20, 24081/20, 25177/20, 26340/20, 29988/20); or (ii)   previous investigations which did not lead to prosecution or a final conviction (in applications nos. 61590/19, 23504/20, 23505/20, 25016/20, 26550/20, 27873/20, 29728/20); (iii) and in some cases, acquittals (applications nos. 23786/20 and 23968/20) as relevant grounds for the termination of an employment contract under decree no. 667. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review before the domestic courts. The applicants, except for the applicant in application no.   26550/20, further complain under Article 8 of the Convention about the alleged stigmatisation brought upon them by their dismissal and the irreversible harm their reputation and private lives suffered. The applicants except for those in applications nos. 23459/20, 23503/20, 24081/20, 25177/20, 26340/20 and 29988/20 further complain under Article   6 §   2 of the Convention of a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence on account of the absence of a conviction in respect of the criminal proceedings relied upon by the labour courts which took place prior to the failed coup of 15 July 2016. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the principles established in Pişkin v. Turkey (no.   33399/18, §§ 120-153, 15 December 2020), did the domestic courts carry out an effective judicial review of the applicants’ dismissals in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In respect of applications nos.   23459/20, 23503/20, 24081/20, 25177/20, 26340/20, 29988/20 , where the labour courts found those applicants’ previous convictions to be relevant, did they give sufficient and pertinent reasons as to how that aspect – known and not objected by the employer at the time of entry into employment – could be accepted as grounds for dismissal in the absence of other factual elements?   2.     In respect of applications nos. 23786/20 and 23968/20 , having regard to the absence of other factual elements relevant at the time of the termination of the contract, did the domestic courts breach the applicants’ established innocence vis-à-vis the previous criminal proceedings relied on by the labour courts in respect of which the applicants had been acquitted (see, inter alia , Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, §§   124 ‑ 126 ECHR 2013)?   3.     In respect of applications nos. 61590/19, 23504/20, 23505/20, 25016/20, 26550/20, 27873/20, 29728/20 , having regard to the absence of other factual elements relevant at the time of the termination of the contract, did the domestic courts breach the applicants’ right to presumption of innocence given the fact that the previous investigations which predated the failed coup of 15 July 2016 had ended with a result other than a conviction (see Allen , cited above, § 94) ?   4.     Finally, has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all applicants except for the applicant in application no.   26550/20 (see Pişkin , cited above, §§ 216-229)?       APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by 1. 61590/19 Onat v. Turkey 15/11/2019 Daham ONAT 1977 Van Deniz IŞIK 2. 23459/20 Daş v. Turkey 15/05/2020 Şeyhmus DAŞ 1982 Diyarbakır Mervan Eren GÜL 3. 23503/20 Darğın v. Turkey 03/06/2020 Mehmet DARĞIN 1982 Diyarbakır Mervan Eren GÜL 4. 23504/20 Duymak v. Turkey 03/06/2020 Muhittin DUYMAK 1963 Şırnak Mervan Eren GÜL 5. 23505/20 Özoğlu v. Turkey 03/06/2020 Zülküf ÖZOĞLU 1978 Diyarbakır Mervan Eren GÜL 6. 23786/20 Yıldırım v. Turkey 15/05/2020 Kenan YILDIRIM 1981 Diyarbakır Mervan Eren GÜL 7. 23968/20 Çalğın v. Turkey 29/05/2020 Hakı ÇALĞIN 1990 Tunceli Enver Erdal ŞİMŞEK 8. 24081/20 Akyol v. Turkey 29/05/2020 Bedri AKYOL 1963 Tunceli Enver Erdal ŞİMŞEK 9. 25016/20 Bilen v. Turkey 04/06/2020 Abdullah BİLEN 1992 Diyarbakır Mervan Eren GÜL 10. 25177/20 Kızıl v. Turkey 05/06/2020 Mehmet KIZIL 1975 Diyarbakır Mervan Eren GÜL 11. 26340/20 Baran v. Turkey 10/06/2020 Recep BARAN 1964 Diyarbakır Mervan Eren GÜL 12. 26550/20 İlaslan v. Turkey 11/06/2020 Ahmet İLASLAN 1976 Batman Merve KURHAN 13. 27873/20 Altuntaş v. Turkey 28/05/2020 Muhittin ALTUNTAŞ 1964 Diyarbakır Mervan Eren GÜL 14. 29728/20 Bekis v. Turkey 29/06/2020 Abdullah BEKIS 1966 Diyarbakır Mervan Eren GÜL 15. 29988/20 Kara v. Turkey 29/06/2020 Aziz KARA 1980 Diyarbakır Mervan Eren GÜL