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 } Published on 21 March 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 84388/17 Suat KURAL against Turkey lodged on 2 December 2017 communicated on 3 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the administrative proceedings brought by the applicant, who was a deputy chief of police in Eskişehir at the time, for the annulment of his temporary appointment to the Police Academy in Samsun. On 13 May 2014, the administrative courts stayed the execution of his temporary appointment until the delivery of a judgment on the merits. Notwithstanding the stay of execution decision in his favour, he was not reinstated to his previous position and was appointed to the Police Academy in Samsun on a permanent basis on the grounds that his previous position was no longer vacant. He thereupon lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court complaining about the non-enforcement of the interim decision of 13 May 2014. In a decision of 2 June 2017 the Constitutional Court found his complaint manifestly ill-founded holding that the non-compliance with interim decision did not render impossible or even excessively difficult the enforcement of the final judgment. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the national authorities refused to reinstate him to his previous position in breach of the stay of execution decision taken in his favour and took active steps to render nugatory the enforcement of the stay of execution decision and the outcome of the annulment proceedings by transferring him to other positions while the annulment proceedings were pending QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, under its civil limb, applicable to the interim proceedings in the instant case (see Micallef v.   Malta   [GC], no.   17056/06, §§ 83-86, 15 October 2009)?   2.     In the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13, on account of the national authorities’ failure to comply with the interim decision (see Okyay and Others v.   Turkey , no.   36220/97, § 73, ECHR 2005 ‑ VII; Kübler v. Germany , no.   32715/06, §§   61-66, 13 January 2011; and Sharxhi and Others v. Albania , no.   10613/16, §   81-95, 11 January 2018)? In this connection, to what extent is the Constitutional Court’s reasoning Convention compliant?