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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 8064/19 Sinan YILMAZ against Türkiye lodged on 11 December 2018 communicated on 25 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE   The application concerns the fairness of proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court in which the applicant’s request for full and permanent disability benefits was rejected based on an expert report concluding that his medical condition did not entail an absolute inability to work. The applicant, a former sergeant of the Turkish Armed Forces, was discharged on 31 December 2013 on health grounds and subsequently denied disability benefits for failing to meet the eligibility criteria. He challenged this decision before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, arguing that he was permanently unable to work. The court dismissed his claim, relying on a medical report from the Gülhane Military Medical Academy (“GATA”) dated 30 January 2015. The applicant then sought rectification of the court’s judgment, arguing that the latter report had not been communicated to him and that it contradicted a previous GATA assessment which had found him fully incapacitated, and requested clarification of these discrepancies. However, the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected his request on 4   June 2015. On 25 May 2018 the Constitutional Court dismissed his application as manifestly ill-founded, and the decision was served on the applicant on 12 June 2018. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Military Administrative Court was not independent and impartial and that a copy of the expert report in question was not communicated to him (including during the rectification proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court), depriving him of the possibility to examine the report and submit his observations.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the decisive importance of the expert report in the proceedings, were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? Specifically, did the domestic courts sufficiently address the applicant’s allegations that the expert report was not communicated to him for comments, that he was unable to challenge its conclusions or authenticity, and that his claims concerning the existence of contradictory expert reports on the same matter were not properly examined (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland , 24 June 1993, § 52, Series A no.   263; Mantovanelli v. France , 18 March 1997, §§   33-36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II ; and Cangı and Others v.   Türkiye , no. 48173/18, §§ 43-47 and §§ 52-55, 14 November 2023)?   2.     Was the court which dealt with the applicant’s case independent and impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Tanışma v.   Turkey , no. 32219/05, §§ 74-84, 17 November 2015)?