CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 13 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26454/18 Z.A. against Türkiye lodged on 25 May 2018 communicated on 25 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of Articles 6 § 1 (length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court), 8 and 14 of the Convention. The applicant was a teacher of Religious Culture and Morals ( Din Kültürü ve Ahlak Bilgisi ) until 3 December 1998, the date when he was dismissed from his post, following disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were based on allegations that the applicant had proposed a homosexual relationship to a school officer and engaged in similar conduct with others in the town. In the investigation report, several witnesses were cited as having confirmed the applicant’s relations with local individuals. The applicant acknowledged engaging in homosexual conduct but denied the allegation concerning the school officer. The report concluded that the applicant had caused unrest within the school and the local community and that his conduct amounted to “immorality incompatible with the teaching profession” under Section 27 §   1 of Law no. 1702 on the Promotion of, and Disciplinary Measures against Primary and Secondary Education Teachers ( İlk ve Orta Tedrisat Muallimlerinin Terfi ve Tecziyeleri Hakkında Kanun ). On that basis, it was recommended that the applicant be dismissed. The High Disciplinary Board of the Ministry of National Education confirmed the dismissal. The applicant lodged an action for annulment with the Administrative Court, arguing that the dismissal was unfounded. On 29 June 1999 the administrative court dismissed his claim, referring to the exemplary role expected of teachers. The judgment became final. Following the entry into force of Law no. 5525 of 22 June 2006 on the Amnesty of Certain Disciplinary Sanctions imposed on Civil Servants and Other Public Officials, the applicant applied to the Ministry of National Education seeking reinstatement to his former position. His request was rejected, on the grounds that reinstatement was not appropriate in view of the nature of his conduct during his tenure. On 16 November 2006 the applicant lodged a second action for annulment with the Ankara Administrative Court, arguing that the dismissal and refusal to reinstate him was based on unsubstantiated claims and had effectively barred him from continuing his professional life. The court dismissed the application, upholding the administration’s discretion in matters of reappointment and citing the nature of the applicant’s previous conduct. The Council of State upheld that judgment. The applicant’s request for rectification was dismissed and the final decision was served on 11   April 2013. In May 2013 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court. He complained that the refusal to reinstate him had been based solely on his sexual orientation, in breach of his right to respect for private life and the prohibition of discrimination. On 18 October 2017 the Constitutional Court examined the complaint under Article   10 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   20 (right to respect for private life) of the Constitution. It also carried out a separate examination under Article 20 alone. The majority held that the decision not to reinstate the applicant had been based on his conduct in the school environment, rather than his sexual orientation, and found no indication of discriminatory intent. Two judges dissented, expressing the view that the reasoning had been discriminatory in nature. The applicant was notified of the Constitutional Court’s decision on 14 March 2018. Relying on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the refusal to reinstate him was based solely on his sexual orientation, in the absence of any reasonable justification, and thus amounted to discriminatory treatment and a violation of his right to respect for private life. He also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court was incompatible with the requirement of a hearing within a reasonable time.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see, among others, Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 95-117, 25 September 2018; Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, §§ 123-132, ECHR   2014 (extracts); and Özpınar v. Turkey , no. 20999/04, §§ 67-72, 19 October 2010)?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his sexual orientation, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (see, among others, Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos.   29381/09 and 32684/09, §§ 76-77, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and A.K. v.   Russia , no. 49014/16, §§ 29-34, 7 May 2024)?   3.     Was the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among others, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v.   Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §§ 142-43, 29 November 2016)?