CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 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 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9680/23 Mustafa Burak SOYLU against Türkiye lodged on 22 February 2023 communicated on 16 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the authorities to remove the administrative annotation entered into the passport application system in respect of the applicant in the context of the state of emergency, which prevented him from obtaining a valid passport. On 15   September 2020 the applicant was convicted to two years and six months’ imprisonment on account of membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY ( the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure ”). The court further decided to lift the ban on the applicant on leaving the country, which had been imposed as a judicial measure during the criminal proceedings. After that decision, the applicant applied to the administration for the removal of the administrative annotation in the passport application system which had been imposed due to the existence of an investigation against him for membership of an armed terrorist organisation as an administrative measure adopted during the state of emergency. As his request was rejected, he brought an action before the Administrative Court. In its judgment, the Administrative Court referred to Article 5 of Law No. 6749 on the Amendment and Adoption of the Decree Law no. 667 on Measures Taken during the State of Emergency which provided for the cancellation of the passports of persons under criminal investigation or prosecution for membership of a terrorist organisation and Additional Article   7 of Law   No.   5682 on Passports, which provided that persons whose passports had been cancelled pursuant to Article 5 of Law No. 6749 might be granted passports provided that they were not subject to ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions for the same reason. On the basis of these provisions, the Administrative Court found that there was no illegality in the administrative decision as the applicant had been convicted of being a member of the FETÖ/PDY and his case was still pending before the Court of Appeal. Upon rejection of his appeal by the Regional Administrative Court, the applicant lodged an individual application before the Turkish Constitutional Court. That court declared his complaints raised under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible for being manifestly-ill founded. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on account of the refusal of the authorities to remove the administrative annotation in the passport application system preventing him from obtaining a valid passport. He argued that due to this measure he was unable to visit his parents living abroad and had lost the opportunity to work abroad with his father, as he previously used to do. 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 refusal of the authorities to remove the administrative annotation in the passport application system preventing him from obtaining a valid 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)?