CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mai 2024

.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 17 June 2024   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 35770/19 and 39547/19 Yunis YILDIZ against Türkiye and Ersoy TURAN against Türkiye lodged on 3 July 2019 and 4 July 2019 respectively communicated on 27 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the rejection of the applicants’ requests seeking registration with the Istanbul Bar Association on account of their dismissal from public service through lists appended to the Legislative Decree no.   672. The first applicant was working as a research assistant at a vocational justice academy while the second applicant was a teacher at a public school. Both applicants were law graduates. After the attempted coup of 15   July 2016, they were dismissed from civil service directly by the Legislative Decree no.   672. Soon after their dismissals they made an application to be registered with the Istanbul Bar Association, which rejected their request. While the Turkish Bar Association, following the applicants’ objection, accepted their request, the Ministry of Justice brought proceedings before the administrative courts seeking annulment of the decision. During those proceedings, the administrative courts found for the Minister of Justice and relied on Section 2 (2) of Legislative Decree No. 672 which provided that persons dismissed by that decree could not be employed in the public service again, as relevant ground for annulling the Turkish Bar Association’s relevant decisions. The courts noted in this respect that the profession of a lawyer, despite being a liberal profession, should be considered as public service. The applicants complain that the national authorities’ refusal to register them with the bar association based on the indefinite ban from public service under an emergency legislative decree amounted to an unlawful and disproportionate interference with the right to respect for their private life 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? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 § 2 (see, inter alia , Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, §§   115-17, 25 September 2018; Mateescu v. Romania , no. 1944/10, §§   29 ‑ 32, 14   January 2014; and Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania , nos.   55480/00 and   59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-VIII)?