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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sB2840CB6 { width:111.86%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD69E4891 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s16B58BE2 { width:30.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF8DB30A5 { width:22.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1D30FF4F { width:17.48%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s268C0F37 { width:22.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4C71B090 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA31B63E { width:30.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBA99ED15 { width:22.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s21565D6A { width:17.48%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC111BEC { width:22.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 13 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 3744/21 VURAL PETROL ÜRÜNLERI GIDA VE MADENCİLİK SAN. TİC. LTD. ŞTİ. and Others against Türkiye lodged on 25 December 2020 communicated on 25 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicants’ ban from participating in public procurements as bidders due to the previous conviction of one of the applicants, while the sentence imposed had been already served at the time of the bidding. Niyazi   Baysan, one of the applicants, is the majority shareholder of the other two applicants which are companies. On 12 September 2017 Vural Limited Company, one of the applicant companies, participated in a tender of the Turkish Radio Television Authority (“TRT”). TRT requested a security check in accordance with section 11(g) of Law   no.   4734 which stipulates that those who are deemed to be “affiliated” ( iltisakli ) with terrorist organisations by the police shall not participate in tenders. The police informed TRT on 6 November 2017 that the applicant Niyazi Baysan had been sentenced to eleven years and eight months’ imprisonment in 1988 for membership of a terrorist organisation which prevented him from participating in the bidding. Thereupon, on 20 June 2018, the administration decided in accordance with section 11(g) of Law   no.   4734 to ban all the applicants from public tenders for two years. On 9 July 2018 the applicants jointly lodged an action for annulment of the decision banning them from public tenders. They argued that no investigation had been pending against any of the claimants, and that the sentence previously imposed following the conviction of one of the applicants had already been served and had been erased from his criminal record since the 1990s. They further argued that due the ambiguity of the term “affiliation” such previous criminal record despite being erased constituted a bar preventing them from entering public tenders. The administrative courts rejected their case. On 21 August 2019 the applicants jointly lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court complaining that section 11(g) of Law   no.   4734 was unforeseeable in its application within the meaning of the Convention. On 14 November 2019, in the framework of a constitutionality review to which the applicants were not a party, the Constitutional Court annulled section   11(g) of Law no. 4734 for being unforeseeable in its application and in breach of the principle of legal certainty. On 22 July 2020 the Constitutional Court nevertheless rejected the applicants’ complaints for being manifestly ill-founded. The applicants complain under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of the insufficient reasoning in the Constitutional Court’s decision rejecting their application despite the previous and recent annulment by the same court of section   11(g) of Law no. 4734 which was the legal basis of the above ‑ mentioned ban. The applicants further complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts relied solely on the information given by the police without questioning it and delivered their decisions without giving sufficient reasoning.         QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention?   Considering its decision to annul section   11(g) of Law no. 4734 for being unforeseeable in its application, did the Constitutional Court give sufficient reasoning in its treatment of the applicants’ argument based on the lack of foreseeability in the application of this provision? Moreover, was the applicant granted an opportunity to challenge the conclusions of the police report and did the domestic courts give sufficient reasons in respect of his arguments (compare Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá , [GC], nos.   55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 176-85, 6 November 2018)?       APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Date of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. VURAL PETROL ÜRÜNLERİ GIDA VE MADENCİLİK SAN. TİC. LTD. ŞTİ. 24/04/1998 Turkish Kayseri 2. YARKIN PETROL VE PETROL ÜRÜNLERİ GIDA VE MADENCİLİK SAN. VE TİC. LTD. ŞTİ. 21/06/2016 Turkish Kayseri 3. Niyazi BAYSAN 11/05/1959 Turkish Kayseri