CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mars 2022

.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 } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 21 March 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58901/19 Naci KURKUT against Turkey and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the refusal of the authorities to appoint the applicants, who fulfilled all the formal conditions, to public service on account of a negative security clearance. All applicants complain of an infringement with their right to a fair trial on account of the alleged failure of the administrative courts to carry out an effective judicial review. As the information and the accusations contained in the security clearance documents were not disclosed to them, they argue that they were unable to contest their veracity in the course of the administrative proceedings and that the court decisions did not contain relevant and sufficient legal reasons. The applicants in application nos. 58901/19, 14944/20, 29101/20, 28956/21 further complain of the arbitrary nature of negative security clearances in so far as the conclusions therein were based on the alleged connections or activities of their close relatives with a terrorist organisation and contained no objective assessment in respect of themselves . The applicant in application no. 29101/20 further complains under Articles   6 §   2 and 7 of the Convention that the administrative courts failed to observe respect for his right to presumption of innocence because they casted doubt on his established innocence by stating that he had been previously acquitted of a terror-related offence solely on account of lack of evidence. The applicants finally point out that despite the law on security clearance was struck down as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 29   July 2019 for not fulfilling, inter alia , the requirement of foreseeability in abstractive review proceedings, the same court did not examine their individual appeals on the merits. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   COMMON QUESTION 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 refusal to appoint the applicants to civil service in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the principle of equality of arms; the right to an adversarial hearing; and the right to a reasoned judgment respected in the impugned proceedings? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS NOS 58901/19, 14944/20, 29101/20 and 28956/21 Can the conclusions contained in the security clearance and the relevant judicial decisions endorsing them be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO.   29101/20 Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies in respect of his Article   6 §2 complaint? In particular, did he raise that complaint in substance before the Constitutional Court?   Has there been a violation of that provision on account of the reasoning and wording of the administrative court decision in the applicant’s case (see, among others, Vassilios Stavropoulos v. Greece , no.   35522/04, §§   38-40, 27   September 2007)   APPENDIX         No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 58901/19 Kurkut v. Turkey 30/10/2019 Naci Kurkut 1985 Diyarbakır Turkish Sedat İleşmek 2. 59988/19 Kesgin v. Turkey 06/11/2019 Şükran Kesgin 1990 Van Turkish Emine Kesgin 3. 14944/20 Doğan Özdemir v. Turkey 17/03/2020 Zeycan Doğan Özdemir 1986 Lorient Turkish Mehmet Kısayol 4. 23565/20 Dolgun Kılıç v. Turkey 03/06/2020 Bahar Dolgun Kılıç 1989 Manisa Turkish   5. 29101/20 Tetik v. Turkey 29/06/2020 Agit Tetik 1992 Şırnak Turkish Rezdar Çoban 6. 42116/20 Tekin v. Turkey 07/09/2020 Baran Tekin 1991 Manisa Turkish Nergiz Tuba Aslan 7. 28956/21 Tanrıkulu v. Turkey 20/05/2021 Mehmet Tanrıkulu 1987 Diyarbakır Turkish Halise Dakalı