CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 octobre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 90 October 2006 Aksoy (Eroğlu) v. Turkey - 59741/00 Judgment 31.10.2006 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Failure to communicate documents from the Defence Ministry’s case-file which had formed the basis for a judgment upholding a civil servant’s dismissal from the army: violation   Facts : The applicant began working as nurses for the army, a post that carried civil servant status. In April 1999, following a disciplinary investigation, the Senior Disciplinary Board of the Ministry of National Defence decided to dismiss the applicant, as a sympathiser of an illegal organisation, for creating disorder in their establishment by conducting ideological and political activities. She lodged an appeal with the Supreme Military Administrative Court. When filing its submissions, the Ministry of Defence sent the case file concerning the administrative investigation to that court in a separate envelope, in accordance with the relevant law; the applicant did not receive a copy. In 2000 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the basis of information and documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence in an envelope marked “secret” and the statements obtained during the administrative investigations. She unsuccessfully challenged the refusal to disclose the investigation file. Law : The disputed decisions had been taken on the sole basis of the investigation files, which had been classified as “secret”, and those files had therefore been of crucial importance for the outcome of the proceedings. Bearing in mind what had been at stake in the proceedings and the nature of the documents and information contained in the investigation file, the impossibility for the applicant to respond to them prior to delivery of judgment by the relevant Supreme Court had violated her right to a fair trial. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damage. N.B.: The applicability of Article   6(1) was confirmed in the Court’s decision on admissibility of 3   November 2005. See also the judgments of the same day in Güner Çorum v . Turkey (no. 59739/00) and Kahraman v . Turkey (no. 60366/00).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes