CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20289/19 Olga Selin HÜNLER ÇİDAM against Türkiye lodged on 25 March 2019 communicated on 4 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the indefinite suspension of the applicant’s jury hearing in the process of her application for the post of associate professor and the subsequent refusal of the administrative courts to examine her complaint with respect to the allegedly unlawful nature of the suspension on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The administrative courts held that solely the State of Emergency Commission (“Commission”) could examine her action owing to section (1) of the Legislative Decree no. 685. However, the applicant was unable to lodge an application with the Commission because she was not listed among the category of persons that could lodge a complaint. On 26 September 2018 the Constitutional Court rejected her application in which she had complained, among others, of a breach of her right of access to a court as inadmissible on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. On 2 July 2021 the applicant informed the Court that she had been confirmed in the post of associate professor on 22 July 2020 but added that she had lost three years of her career on account of the suspension in question. The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that she was denied access to a court on account of the administrative courts’ manifestly erroneous interpretation of the law with respect to their jurisdiction as well as the Constitutional Court’s rejection of her application.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable in the present case (see, for example, Oktay Alkan v. Türkiye , no.   24492/21, §§   39-   42, 20 June 2023)? If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the refusal of the courts to examine her complaint with respect to the suspension in question (see generally Zubac v.   Croatia   [GC], no.   40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018)?