CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42109/22 Samet KAYA against Türkiye lodged on 11 August 2022 communicated on 21 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the termination by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (“HSK”) of the applicant’s judicial functions pursuant to Section   53/c of Law no. 2802 on Judges and Prosecutors. The HSK’s decision of 7 September 2021 was based on the health report of the Forensic Medicine Institute (FMI) of 11 August 2021, which concluded that the applicant was not fit to carry out his duties as a judge or a prosecutor due to his medical condition. The applicant complains under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention that he did not have access to a court to challenge the HSK’s decision terminating his judicial functions which had been taken without respect for adversarial proceedings. He further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that he was arbitrarily dismissed from his duties, arguing that he had already recovered from the health issue which was considered by the FMI as an impediment to carry out his functions.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable in the present case (see Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 104-105, 23   June 2016, and Bilgen v. Turkey , no. 1571/07, § 68, 9 March 2021)?   If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in view of the constitutional prohibition on judicial review of the HSK’s decisions in these types of disputes, that is to say termination of judicial functions on the basis of Section 53/c of Law no. 2802 (see Bilgen , cited above, §§ 92-96; Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey , no. 76521/12, §§ 99-105, 9   March 2021; and Oktay Alkan v. Türkiye , no. 24492/21, § 52 and §§ 67-69, 20   June 2023)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§   103-105, 25   September 2018)?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis, Özpınar v.   Turkey , no.   20999/04, §§   74-78, 19   October 2010)?