CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mai 2025

.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 2 June 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40381/20 Erhan ÇAHA against Türkiye lodged on 27 August 2020 communicated on 12 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE This application concerns the applicant’s allegations of a lack of impartiality on the part of the enforcement judge and the unfairness of the proceedings concerning his objection to the disciplinary sanction imposed on him. The applicant, a former army officer detained and tried for offences related to the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, was subjected to a disciplinary sanction by the prison administration. The sanction, consisting of a three-month restriction on the use of communication tools, was imposed due to remarks he allegedly had made to T.H., a colonel responsible for the prisoners’ transfers, in the courthouse. On 14 March 2019 the applicant objected to the disciplinary sanction before the enforcement judge. On 19 August 2019 he submitted an additional petition seeking the judge’s recusal for partiality, citing letters dated 17 and 20   June 2019 addressed to the Ministry of the Interior and the Gendarmerie General Command in which the judge had praised T.H. for his exemplary conduct and described him as frequently facing insults and threats from coup-supporting officers within the courthouse. The applicant’s request for the judge’s recusal was rejected. The applicant further claimed that during the hearing on his objection to the disciplinary sanction, the enforcement judge refused to hear the witnesses he had requested to be examined. The applicant’s objection to the disciplinary sanction was rejected by the enforcement judge. This decision was ultimately upheld by the Assize Court. On 7 May 2020 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s individual application as manifestly ill-founded. The applicant invokes Article 6 of the Convention, complaining of the enforcement judge’s lack of impartiality and alleging that he was denied the opportunity to have witnesses examined during the proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the letters written by the enforcement judge during the proceedings concerning the applicant, was the judge impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s objection to the disciplinary sanction (see, for the general principles, Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v.   Georgia , no.   16812/17, §§ 330-333 and 359, 18 July 2019 , and Karrar v.   Belgium , no.   61344/16, §§ 29-35, 31 August 2021)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Gülmez v. Turkey , no.   16330/02, §§ 26-31, 20   May 2008)? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms, together with the right to adversarial proceedings, respected, having regard to the absence of any consideration by the judge of the applicant’s request for certain witnesses to be heard (see Carmel Saliba v. Malta , no.   24221/13, §§   75 and 77, 29   November 2016, and Wierzbicki v.   Poland , no. 24541/94, §§   39 and 45, 18 June 2002)?