CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 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. 58806/18 and 2153/19 Deniz Ali GÜR against Türkiye and Yasin BEDIR against Türkiye lodged on 22 November 2018 and 21 November 2018 respectively communicated on 15 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the cancellation of the passports of the applicants who were dismissed from their posts as research assistants at their universities by Legislative Decree no. 689 of 29 April 2017. The   applicants are among the signatories of the Academics for Peace petition. The applicants claimed that although they wished to continue their doctoral studies abroad, the cancellation of their passports for an indefinite period of time prevented them from travelling abroad and as a result, they faced the risk of losing their student status in the foreign university doctoral programmes to which they had been admitted. The applicants complained of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the cancellation of their passports. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention ( Telek and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 66763/17 and 2 others, §§ 93-95, 21 March 2023)?   2.     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? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (compare, mutadis mutandis , Telek and Others , cited above, §§ 101-128)?   3.     Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of their inability to pursue their doctoral studies abroad (compare Telek and Others , cited above, §§   149-154)?