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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 6 January 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no.   52516/22 Hüseyin PADEM against Türkiye lodged on 28   October 2022 communicated on 4   December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the cancellation of the applicant’s passport by the administration after the attempted coup of 15   July 2016. The applicant is a Turkish national and resides in Romania since 2013. On 27   September 2016 his passport was cancelled by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Türkiye. He brought an action against this decision before the Administrative Court. In its judgment upholding that decision, the Administrative Court referred to Article 5 of Legislative Decree No.   667 which provides for the cancellation of the passports of individuals under criminal investigation or prosecution due to their membership in, affiliation with or connection to terrorist organisations. It further relied on Article   22 of Law   No.   5682 on Passports which prohibits the issuance of passports to persons who were identified by the Ministry of Internal Affairs to be the founders and managers of education and training institutions and companies abroad that are affiliated with terrorist organisations. On the basis of these provisions, the Administrative Court concluded that there was no illegality in the administrative decision on the grounds that the applicant was abroad as a suspected member of the terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY ( “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure ”) and that he was the president of a university abroad allegedly affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY. Upon rejection of his appeal by the Regional Administrative Court, he lodged an individual application before the Turkish Constitutional Court. In its judgment, the Constitutional Court stated that there was an arrest warrant dated 31 October 2017 issued against the applicant on the charge of being a member of an armed terrorist organisation. The Constitutional Court examined the applicant’s complaints within the scope of the right to respect for private life and held that even though the impugned measure was not proportionate in a democratic society, examined under Article 15 of the Constitution, it was a measure necessary to the extent required by the state of emergency and that therefore there was no violation. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the applicant complains that the cancellation of his passport violated his right to freedom of movement and work, alleging that he was the owner of a company in Romania and that this restriction prevented him from making business-related trips abroad. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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, on account of the cancellation of his passport? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (compare, mutadis   mutandis ,   Telek and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 66763/17 and 2 others, §§   108 ‑ 28, 21 March 2023, and Paşaoğlu v. Turkey , no. 8932/03, §§ 41-47, 8   July 2008)?   The parties are invited to submit a copy of the complete case file pertaining to the criminal proceedings which led to the rejection of the applicant’s action before the Administrative Court.