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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 17 June 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45611/22 Haki AKSOY against Türkiye and 7 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 27 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern administrative proceedings instituted by the applicants with a view to setting aside the police department’s decision to retire them early on 17 April 2015 on the grounds of inadequacy of available posts for the applicants in their post category. The first-instance administrative court dismissed the action, finding the applicants’ compulsory early retirement to be in accordance with both the procedure and the law as set out in law no. 3201. The administrative courts further noted that the administration had a wide margin of appreciation in the process of selecting the candidates for forced retirement irrespective of their performance or experience. Subsequently, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ rectification requests. It noted that the administration’s selection of candidates in the early retirement procedure had been subjective and against the principle of equality in as much as the candidates’ work performance, experience and disciplinary records had not been taken into account in a transparent and consistent manner. Despite this finding, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the decision on the applicants’ early retirement had nevertheless been lawful as they had been the subject of a downgrading measure by the legislative decree no. 675 of 29 October 2016. All applicants complain about the alleged failure of the administrative courts to carry out an effective judicial review in respect of their forced retirement and about the allegedly insufficient reasons given by them. More specifically, they argue that the decisions to retire them early were taken arbitrarily, without any objective and reviewable criteria, which the courts failed to subject to judicial scrutiny. The applicants in applications nos. 50413/22, 54269/22, 55883/22, 4484/23 and 36477/23 further argue that the Supreme Administrative Court justified the administration’s early retirement decision on the basis of the downgrading measure adopted on 29 October 2016 which post-dated the administration’s impugned decisions in their cases. They therefore consider that their trial was also unfair in this respect. In addition, the applicant in application no. 55883/22 complains of the manner in which the Supreme Administrative Court substituted the grounds for its decision without giving him an opportunity to submit his observations concerning the downgrading measure. Lastly, the applicants in applications nos. 50413/22, 4484/23 and   36477/23 complain about a breach of their right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of their allegedly arbitrary early retirement from the police force. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES COMMON QUESTION Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the fact that the legislative decree no. 675 providing for the downgrading measure was introduced on 29   October 2016, which post-dated the impugned retirement decisions, and the Supreme Administrative Court’s own finding to the effect that the retirement decisions in question had not been based on any objective grounds, can it be said that the domestic courts’ judicial review in the case was sufficient and contained relevant and sufficient reasoning (see, inter alia , Pişkin v. Turkey , no.   33399/18, §§ 130-135 and 149, 15   December 2020 and Alonso Saura v.   Spain , no. 18326/19, §§ 34-35, 8 June 2023)? CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO. 55883/22   Was the principle of an adversarial hearing respected when the Supreme Administrative Court based its decision on the fact that the applicant had been subject of a measure under legislative decree no. 675, legislation not relied on or discussed by the parties (see , inter alia , Clinique des Acacias and Others v. France , nos. 65399/01 and 3 others, §§ 36-38, 13 October 2005; Čepek v. the   Czech Republic , no. 9815/10, §§ 44-50, 5 September 2013; and Alexe v. Romania , no.   66522/09, §§ 33-37, 3 May 2016)? CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS NOS. 50413/22, 4484/23 AND 36477/23   Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of their forced early retirement? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Denisov v.   Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 95-117, 25 September 2018, and Pişkin , cited above, §§   201-229)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 45611/22 Aksoy v. Türkiye 21/09/2022 Haki AKSOY 1966 Kayseri Turkish İbrahim Talha DEMİRCAN 2. 50413/22 Yıldız v. Türkiye 14/10/2022 Baki YILDIZ 1966 Ankara Turkish Elif Nurbanu OR 3. 54269/22 Gençoğlu v. Türkiye 19/10/2022 Serdar GENÇOĞLU 1967 Ankara Turkish   4. 55883/22 Mert v. Türkiye 22/11/2022 Zülkarneyn MERT 1967 Edirne Turkish Gamze MERT 5. 4484/23 Şahin v. Türkiye 04/01/2023 Fatih ŞAHİN 1966 Ankara Turkish Fatih DÖNMEZ 6. 5758/23 Yazıcı v. Türkiye 17/01/2023 İbrahim YAZICI 1969 Ankara Turkish   7. 5897/23 Akgün v. Türkiye 20/01/2023 Ahmet AKGÜN 1966 Turkish   Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 8. 36477/23 Gürel v. Türkiye 27/09/2023 Selahattin GÜREL 1969 Gaziantep Turkish Fatih DÖNMEZ