CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } Published on 3 November 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10637/25 Muhammed ŞAHAN against Türkiye lodged on 12 March 2025 communicated on 13 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal to admit the applicant into the police force following an interview and the administrative proceedings regarding the judicial review of the lawfulness of that interview. After successfully completing police officer training programme, the applicant participated in a police candidacy interview on 27 July 2018, where he was assessed based on a single, randomly selected question. However, he was eliminated from the recruitment process on the grounds that his response to the interview question was considered insufficient. Although the interview evaluation form included individual scores from each panel member, the section designated for providing a justification for the panel’s conclusion was left blank. In the judicial review proceedings lodged by the applicant, the Ankara Regional Administrative Court annulled the administrative act on 3   October 2019 on the grounds that the interview evaluation form did not specify the reasons for the low scores given to the applicant, which was found to be contrary to the applicable regulation. However, the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the Regional Administrative Court’s decision on 15   January 2020, holding that the interview had been conducted objectively and that therefore the administrative act complied with the established criteria for judicial review. In response, the Regional Administrative Court issued a decision opposing the overturn, leading to the matter being referred to the Supreme Administrative Court’s General Assembly of Administrative Proceedings Divisions. In turn, the General Assembly upheld the earlier decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 15 January 2020, ruling by a majority that the interview had been lawful. The judges in the minority considered that evaluating a police candidate with only a single question during the interview was contrary to the purpose and provisions of the relevant regulation. Despite the fact that the applicant had successfully completed a comprehensive training program covering many subjects, only one question - with a short, nine-word answer - was used to assess both his professional knowledge and personal competencies. Although the regulation allowed for follow-up questions when a single answer was insufficient to form a full opinion, that option had also not been used. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial since the extent of the judicial review carried out by administrative courts was insufficient. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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? In particular, did the judicial review conducted by the administrative courts adequately address and determine the core substantive issues raised by the applicant (see generally Pişkin v. Turkey , no. 33399/18, §§   130-135, 15   December 2020)?