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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 3 November 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 69378/16 Ahmet BERBEROĞLU and Others against Türkiye lodged on 26 October 2016 communicated on 13 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal of the applicants from their positions as members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (“HSYK”), to which they had been elected on 25 October 2014 for a four ‑ year term. On 15 July 2016 the applicants were taken into police custody in the context of terrorism-related investigations concerning the attempted coup d’état. On 16 July 2016 the HSYK convened in an extraordinary session and adopted a decision terminating the applicants’ membership in the HSYK. It referred to section 18(1)(a) of Law no. 6087, which provides that HSYK members must fulfil the conditions for admission to the judicial profession and held that the applicants no longer satisfied that requirement due to the initiation of criminal investigations against them. On 2 August 2016 the General Assembly of the HSYK rejected the applicants’ objections. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings resulting in the termination of their HSYK membership did not comply with the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. They further complain of the lack of a fair trial and the absence of individualised reasoning. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants also allege that they had no access to an effective remedy to challenge the HSYK’s decisions before an independent judicial body. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable in the present case (see, for example, F.G. v. Greece (dec.), no. 58740/11, §§   49 ‑ 52, 25 April 2017, with further references; Bilgen v. Turkey , no.   1571/07, §§ 47-81, 9 March 2021; and Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey , no.   76521/12, §§ 59-80, 9   March 2021)?   2.     Having regard to the circumstances in which the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors adopted the decision of 16 July 2016, and to the composition of the General Assembly which subsequently upheld that decision on 2 August 2016, can it be said that the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention were satisfied in the present case (see, for example, Eminağaoğlu , cited above, §§ 95 et seq., Grace Gatt v. Malta , no.   46466/16, §§ 74-90, 8   October 2019, and Gerovska Popčevska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 48783/07, §§ 43–56, 7   January 2016)? Did the applicants have a fair trial and, in particular, did they receive a sufficiently reasoned decision by a tribunal (see, for general principles, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no.   19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the lack of judicial review of the HSYK’s decisions in these types of disputes (see Bilgen , §§ 95 ‑ 96, and Eminağaoğlu , §§ 102–04, both cited above)?       Annexe   List of applicants:   No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location 1. 69378/16 Berberoğlu and Others v. Türkiye 26/10/2016 Ahmet BERBEROĞLU 1971 Ankara Turkish Şaban IŞIK 1964 Ankara Turkish Mustafa Kemal ÖZÇELİK 1968 Ankara Turkish Mahmut ŞEN 1973 Ankara Turkish Kerim TOSUN 1966 Ankara Turkish Aytekin ERÇOBAN Ankara