CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 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 27 September 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 22111/19 Feyzullah CANER against Turkey lodged on 8 April 2019 communicated on 10 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a police officer, trained as a bomb-expert. When he was working as a bomb expert in a specialised police force within the Ankara police department, he was transferred to another department in Ankara in the role of a regular police officer. On 13 February 2015 the administrative courts annulled the transfer on account of procedural irregularities. Despite that decision, the authorities rejected the applicant’s request to be reinstated and transferred him to another office on the ground that the bomb-expert unit was already overstaffed. The applicant brought further judicial review proceedings, and on 11 December 2015 the administrative courts found in his favour again, ordering his reinstatement and compensation of any remuneration lost as a result of the impugned transfer. Notwithstanding the administrative court decisions, the applicant was not reinstated and his request for compensation was rejected on 17 February 2016. On 13 February 2019 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s individual application concerning non-enforcement of court decisions manifestly ill-founded by way of a summary formula. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains about the non-enforcement of domestic decisions in his favour.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Have the decisions of the administrative courts rendered on 13   February 2015 and 11 December 2015 in the applicant’s favour been enforced fully and in good time? If not, has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Taşkın and Others v.   Turkey , no. 46117/99, §§   127 ‑ 138, ECHR   2004‑X, and Okyay and Others v.   Turkey , no. 36220/97, §§   70 ‑ 75, ECHR   2005‑VII)?