CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 novembre 2023

.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 4 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 30520/19 and 21747/20 Emrah GÜRSEL against Türkiye and Ümran LISTE against Türkiye lodged on 14 May 2019 and 28 May 2020 respectively communicated on 16 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the cancellation of the applicants’ passports in connection with the legal procedures against the applicants’ spouses. At the material time, the first applicant was working and living in Germany with his wife, who was on unpaid maternity leave. His wife, who is one of the signatories of the Academics for Peace petition, was dismissed by Legislative Decree no. 689 of 29 April 2017 from her position at Marmara University. After his passport was cancelled without any reason being given, the applicant took an action for annulment and compensation before the administrative court. The Administrative Court dismissed the case for reasons of public security, taking into account the fact that the applicant’s wife was abroad and that there was an ongoing investigation against her. The second applicant, whose husband was charged with membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY (the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”), was working as a researcher at Hacettepe University. She applied for a passport in order to attend a congress abroad to which she had been assigned by Hacettepe University. As a result of the silence of the administrative authorities in response to her request, she was unable to attend the congress and brought a full remedy before the administrative court. The administrative court dismissed the action on the grounds that the position of the authorities was in accordance with Article 5 of Law no. 6749. The individual applications of both applicants were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court. The applicants complained that the cancellation of their passports and/or their inability to obtain a new passport breached their right to respect for   private life guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the cancellation of their passports and/or their inability to obtain new passports? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 ( compare, mutadis mutandis , Telek and   Others v. Türkiye , nos. 66763/17 and 2 others, §§ 101-128, 21 March 2023)?