CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 novembre 2005

.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. 80 November 2005 Güner Çorum v. Turkey (dec.) - 59739/00 Decision 3.11.2005 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Adversarial trial Lack of communication to one of the parties of parts of the case-file on which the legal decision had been based: admissible   Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Independence and impartiality of the High military administrative court: inadmissible   Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Dismissal of a civil servant for having carried out ideological and political activities as a sympathiser of an illegal organisation: admissible   The applicant, a civil servant working as a nurse in the army, was dismissed for conducting ideological and political activities as a sympathiser of an illegal organisation. She appealed against the decision before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, denying the offence of which she stood accused. She asked to be sent the documents cited by the army as grounds for her dismissal (an inquiry and documents forwarded to the judge). The Supreme Court found that the information and documents submitted in an envelope marked “Secret” showed that the applicant was a member of an extreme left-wing group and had conducted political and ideological activities in the performance of her duties. It dismissed the appeal. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 with regard to the fairness of the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, and under Article 10. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (independent and impartial tribunal) with regard to the status of the members of the Supreme Military Administrative Court.   © 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