CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mai 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. 134 October 2010 Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey (referral) - 13279/05 Judgment 27.5.2010 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Divergences in case-law of administrative and administrative military courts: case referred to the Grand Chamber The applicants’ son, an army pilot, died in May 2001 in a plane crash which occurred during the transport of troops in Turkey. The parents applied unsuccessfully for the monthly pension payable to family members under the Anti-Terrorism Act. They brought proceedings before the Administrative Court and subsequently before the Supreme Military Administrative Court. The applicants complained of the diverging assessment of the circumstances of the plane crash made by the ordinary and military administrative courts. While the former had established the existence of a causal link between the incident and the fight against terrorism – a prerequisite for eligibility for the pension in question – the latter had held that no such link existed. In a judgment of 27   May 2010 a Chamber of the Court held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, on the ground that the applicants could not claim to have been denied justice on account of the examination of their case by the courts concerned or the approach taken by them in the circumstances of the case. On 4 October 2010 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.   © 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