Přehled
Rozhodnutí
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1540/06
Murat DEMIR against Turkey
and 103 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 November 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
Ivana Jelić, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, is set out in the appendix.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. All of the applicants initiated proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court and their cases were dismissed.
5. The details of the applications may be found in the appendix.
B. Relevant domestic law
6. A description of the domestic law at the material time may be found in Tanışma v. Turkey (no. 32219/05, §§ 29-47, 17 November 2015), and Yavuz v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 29870/96, 25 May 2000).
7. Following a referendum held on 16 April 2017, Law no. 6771 was adopted. According to this new law, Articles 145 and 157 of the Constitution were repealed and the Supreme Military Administrative Court was abolished. Furthermore, the following paragraph was added to Article 142 of the Constitution:
“... No military courts shall be formed other than disciplinary courts. However, in a state of war, military courts may be formed with jurisdiction to try offences committed by military personnel in relation to their duties.”
8. On 21 March 2018 Law no. 7103 was enacted; it was published in the Official Gazette on 27 March 2018. Section 23 of Law no. 7103 amends the Administrative Procedure Act (Law no. 2577) to state that all applicants who currently have an application pending before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Military Administrative Court may request a retrial before the Ankara Administrative Court within three months of notification of the Court’s inadmissibility decision on account of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
COMPLAINT
9. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of unfairness in the proceedings held before the Supreme Military Administrative Court. In this connection, they argued that the Supreme Military Administrative Court could not be considered to be an independent and impartial tribunal.
THE LAW
10. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
11. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, since the two military officers who had sat on the bench of the Supreme Military Administrative Court had remained under the authority of the military hierarchy of the military authorities and had not been afforded the same judicial guarantees as other military judges. Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
12. The Government informed the Court that on 21 March 2018 Law no. 7103 had been enacted and published in the Official Gazette on 27 March 2018. They pointed out that Section 23 of Law no. 7103 had amended the Administrative Procedure Act (Law no. 2577) to state that all applicants who currently have a pending application before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Military Administrative Court may request a retrial before the Ankara Administrative Court within three months of notification of the Court’s inadmissibility decisions on account of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Accordingly, they maintained that the present applications should be rejected for due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
13. The Court reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule, contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court. Accordingly, this rule requires applicants first to use the remedies provided by the national legal system, thus dispensing States from answering before the Court for their acts. Yet, the rule is based on the assumption that the domestic system provides an effective remedy in respect of the alleged breach (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 37685/10, § 117, 20 March 2018; Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 75, 12 October 2010; and İçyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, 12 January 2006).
14. The assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court. However, as the Court has held on many occasions, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001, and İçyer, cited above).
15. The Court recalls that in its judgment in the case of Tanışma v. Turkey (no. 32219/05, 17 November 2015), it has examined the legal problem at issue and ruled that the Supreme Military Administrative Court could not be considered to be an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. As a result, in order to provide redress for similar complaints at domestic level and to reduce the number of applications pending before the Court, as of 16 April 2017 the Supreme Military Administrative Court has been abolished. Subsequently, by Law no. 7103 dated on 21 March 2018, a genuine opportunity to obtain a fresh trial before a civil administrative court for all applications that are currently pending before the Court, ws adopted.
16. In its decision in the case of Baysal v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 29698/11, 22 May 2018), the Court declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the fairness of proceedings.
17. The Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Baysal (cited above) and observes that in the present cases all applicants who have a pending case before the Court concerning the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Military Administrative Court have now the possibility of requesting a retrial before the Ankara Administrative Court within three months of notification of the Court’s inadmissibility decision on account of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. As a result, the Ankara Administrative Court will be called on to conduct a fresh examination of the cases and an appeal may be lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of the Ankara Administrative Court. The applicants may further bring an individual application to the Constitutional Court against the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court. Should the applicants still consider themselves to be the victim of the alleged violation, it would be open to them to lodge a new application with the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Convention.
18. In the light of the above considerations, the Court considers that many factors in the instant case justify a departure from the general principle that the exhaustion requirement must be assessed with reference to the time at which the applications were lodged. The Court accordingly concludes that the applicants should use the possibility of a retrial provided for by Law no. 7103.
19. It follows that the present applications must, as a whole, be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 29 November 2018.
Hasan Bakırcı Ledi Bianku
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
No. | Application no. | Lodged on | Applicant Date of birth Place of residence | Represented by | Case specific details |
1540/06 | 23/12/2005 | Murat DEMİR 08/09/1976 Bursa | Fikri AKGÜN | The applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court (“the SMAC”), stating that he had been infected with hepatitis B during his compulsory military service. On 16 February 2005 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (no. 2004/99 E, 2005/159K). On 8 June 2005 his rectification request was further rejected by the SMAC (no. 2005/437E, 2005/504K). The final decision was served on the applicant on 27 June 2005. | |
19526/07 | 26/04/2007 | Sabriye ÇELİK 10/08/1964 Batman Zubeyir ÇELİK 02/01/1965 Batman | Çetin BİNGÖLBALI | Following the death of their son during his military service, the applicants initiated compensation proceedings before the SMAC. On 10 January 2007 the SMAC dismissed the applicants’ case (no. 2006/1138E, 2007/26K). On 14 March 2007 their rectification request was further rejected by the SMAC (no. 2007/219E, 2007/242K). | |
602/08 | 25/12/2007 | Volkan SEYREK 09/10/1978 Ankara | Fidel OKAN | On 24 May 2006 the applicant, who was a sergeant in the Turkish army, was dismissed from his post on account of the disciplinary sanctions that had been imposed on him. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 27 November 2007 the SMAC dismissed his case (no. 2006/582E, 2007/1132K). | |
16275/08 | 25/03/2008 | Kenan VURAL 13/04/1978 Istanbul | Veysel ANGIN | In 2000, during his military service, the applicant was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis and he was subsequently discharged from the army. The applicant applied to the General Directorate of Retired Civil Servants’ Fund, asking for disability benefits. On 19 September 2006 his request was rejected. The applicant subsequently initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 31 May 2007 the SMAC dismissed the case (no. 2007/627E, 2007/741K). On 27 September 2007 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (2007/930E, 2007/1004K). This decision was notified on the applicant’s lawyer on 11 October 2007. | |
41001/08 | 15/08/2008 | Halil İbrahim AYDIN 23/04/1992 Eskişehir | Faruk HATİPOĞLU | Following the applicant’s dismissal from military school, proceedings were initiated before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 26 March 2008 the SMAC dismissed the case (No. 2007/1065E and 2008/392K). | |
43809/08 | 03/09/2008 | Hayri ÇEVİK 10/09/1955 Tekirdağ Ürfet ÇEVİK 12/01/1960 Tekirdağ Aytekin ÇEVİK 02/04/1979 Tekirdağ Bilge ÇEVİK 20/02/1987 Tekirdağ | İlkay SEZER | The applicants’ relative was killed while he was on active duty during his military service, on 6 October 2003. In 2003, the applicants applied to the Ministry of Defence and requested to be granted compensation pursuant to Law No. 2330. On 21 June 2007 the Ministry of Defence rejected their request on the ground that the circumstances of the incident did not fall within Law no. 2330. The applicants initiated proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court (SMAC) to have that decision annulled. On 17 January 2008 the SMAC dismissed the case (No.2007/2483E, 2008/284K). On 17 April 2008 the SMAC further rejected their rectification request (No. 2008/463E, 2008/637K). | |
56738/08 | 11/11/2008 | Onur KUMCU 04/02/1991 Istanbul | Haluk DEMİRKILIÇ | The applicant, who was a military school student, was dismissed from his school on 10 October 2005 on account of his health condition. The applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court (“the SMAC”), alleging that his health problem had started in a military training camp and had deteriorated as a result of insufficient medical care. On 9 January 2008 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s claim (No. 2006/1327E, 2008/36K). On 30 April 2008 the applicant’s rectification request was also dismissed by the same court (No. 2008/473E, 2008/508K). | |
5920/09 | 20/01/2009 | Seher TÜFEKCİ 16/03/1976 Ankara | The applicant was appointed as a teacher in a post in the Army. When her contract was not renewed, she initiated proceedings before the SMAC to recover the debts that the administration allegedly owed to her. On 19 March 2008 the SMAC dismissed the case (No. 2007/775E, 2008/371K). The applicant’s rectification request was further rejected on 9 July 2008 (No. 2008/736E, 2008/772K). | ||
24596/09 | 27/04/2009 | Mehmet GÜL 07/11/1979 Diyarbakır | Oktay BAĞATIR | Following a physical injury during his compulsory military service in 2005, the applicant brought compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Defence before the SMAC. On 17 September 2008 the SMAC rejected his case (No. 2006/1392E, 2008/963K). The final decision was notified on him on 3 November 2008. | |
27890/09 | 20/04/2009 | Ferhat YEKTA 28/12/1978 Gaziantep | Following his dismissal from the Army, the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 9 July 2008 the SMAC dismissed the case (no. 2008/304E, 2008/661K). On 21 October 2008 the applicant’s rectification request was also rejected by the same court (no. 2008/102E, 2008/855K). This decision was served on the applicant on 12 November 2008. | ||
31913/09 | 29/04/2009 | Ahmet UYKAL 10/02/1969 İzmit | İsmet YANBAY | On 12 May 2008 the applicant, a sergeant major serving in the Army was assigned from Kocaeli to another military unit in Marmaris. He accordingly filed an action against this decision with the SMAC to have it annulled. On 11 November 2008 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s case (no.2008/710E, 2008/979K). On 24 February 2009 the applicant’s rectification request was also dismissed by the same court (no. 2008/1230E, 2009/176K). | |
50414/09 | 24/08/2009 | Nazif ARDIÇ 01/01/1975 Adana | Fatih KANMAZ | When serving as a non-commissioned officer in the Turkish army in 2007, several criminal cases were initiated against the applicant. Subsequently on 16 October 2007 the applicant was dismissed from the army. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the dismissal decision annulled, and on 21 October 2008 the SMAC dismissed his case (no.2008/273E, 2008/878K). On 7 April 2009 his rectification request was further rejected by the same court (no. 2009/394E, 2009/380K). | |
61927/09 | 05/11/2009 | Ömer YILDIZ 19/02/1985 Edirne | Recep SELÇUK | During his compulsory military service in 2006, the applicant was seriously injured as a result of an explosion of a bomb detonator. Subsequent to this accident he was discharged from the army for being medically unfit. The applicant applied to the General Directorate of Retired Civil Servants’ Fund and asked for disability benefits. On 8 June 2008 his request was refused. He then initiated proceedings before the SMAC to set aside the Fund’s decision. On 12 February 2009 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (no. 2008/1205E, 2009/140K). On 21 May 2009 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2009/690E, 2009/547K). | |
3322/10 | 11/01/2010 | Muhammet Esedullah DUTAĞACI 27/02/1972 Kilis | Ahmet BİLGİN | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post. He initiated proceedings to have the annulment of the dismissal decision. The SMAC accepted the case and he was reinstated. He applicant subsequently initiated compensation proceedings before the SMAC, claiming his unpaid salary and benefits. On 21 July 2009 the court dismissed the case (No. 2008/1140E, 2009/781K). The rectification request was also rejected by the SMAC on 13 October 2009 (No. 2009/1015E, 2009/966K). | |
5352/10 | 13/01/2010 | Yaşar YILAN 10/06/1977 MALATYA | Nejla ÇITIL TUFAN | The applicant, alleging that the compulsory military service had caused him a mental disorder, initiated proceedings before the SMAC to benefit from a disability pension. On 14 May 2009 the case was dismissed (No. 2008/1027E, 2009/541K). On 17 September 2009 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2009/837E, 2009/887K). | |
7607/10 | 02/02/2010 | Hüseyin ERCİVAN 01/03/1978 Adana | Necati ŞEKERCİOĞLU | The applicant, an officer in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC on 24 June 2008 to have the annulment of a decision regarding his appointment. On 5 May 2009 the court dismissed his case (No. 2008/784E, 2009/508K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 21 July 2009 (No. 2009/814E, 2009/770K). This decision was notified on the applicant on 3 August 2009. | |
14270/10 | 15/02/2010 | Erol NARLI 15/11/1978 Ankara | Gökhan ÇİÇEK | On 31 July 2008 the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the SMAC. On 13 May 2009 the court dismissed the case, and subsequently on 9 September 2009 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected by the SMAC. | |
30240/10 | 10/05/2010 | Okan ÇAĞLAR 02/08/1982 Bursa | Following his dismissal from the Army, the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 22 December 2009 the court dismissed the case (no. 2009/1250E, 2009/1251K). The rectification request was rejected on 16 March 2010 (no. 2010/285E, 2010/269K). | ||
31881/10 | 22/04/2010 | Ismail ULUTAŞ 01/01/1974 Malatya | Zeki TAŞKIRAN | The applicant, who was suffering from a mental disorder, was declared unfit for military service. The applicant then initiated proceedings against the Social Security Institute before the SMAC to benefit from a disability pension. His case was dismissed on 11 November 2009 (No. 2008/462E, 2009/1237K). His rectification request was also rejected on 17 February 2010 (No. 2010/191E, 2010/218K). | |
36547/10 | 17/06/2010 | Necati DOĞAN 10/03/1982 Eskişehir | Dursun KARACA | Following his dismissal from his post in the army, the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 17 November 2009 the court dismissed his case (No. 2008/155E, 2009/1095K). The rectification request was rejected on 19 January 2010 (No. 2010/96E, 2010/34K). | |
38146/10 | 01/04/2010 | Mehmet DUTUKLAR 10/05/1978 Van | Ahmet BİLGİN | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 23 December 2009 the court dismissed his case (No. 2009/743E, 2009/1218K). The rectification request was rejected on 9 February 2010 (No. 2010/184E, 2010/125K). This decision was served on 19 February 2010. | |
62012/10 | 22/09/2010 | Ramazan GÖKPINAR 06/06/1986 Uşak | Ayhan ÖZÇALIK | On 12 July 2007, during his compulsory military service, the applicant was injured and discharged from the army for being medically unfit. The applicant filed a compensation case with the SMAC. On 17 February 2010 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (no. 2009/957E, 2010/231K). On 14 April 2010 the applicant’s rectification request was also dismissed (no. 2010/460E, 2010/480K). | |
33693/11 | 20/04/2011 | Canan SERİM 17/12/1985 Kırıkkale | Cavit ÇALIŞ | The applicant’s husband was an officer in the Army and he died in a car accident. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC against the Social Security Institution to benefit from a pension. Her case was dismissed on 9 December 2010 (No. 2010/649E, 2010/1800K).The rectification request was rejected on 3 March 2011 (No. 2011/691E, 2011/967K). | |
38337/11 | 01/06/2011 | İbrahim KURUMEYDAN 01/01/1975 Ankara | Tülay ÇELİKYÜREK | The applicant, an officer in Army, was dismissed from his post on 28 August 2009 due to disciplinary issues. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 22 June 2010 the court dismissed his case (No. 2009/1077E, 2010/765K). The rectification request was rejected on 23 November 2010 (No. 2010/1204E, 2010/1134K). This decision was notified on the applicant on 2 December 2010. | |
57498/11 | 24/06/2011 | Reşat BAKIR 01/12/1974 Kayseri | Dursun KARACA | The applicant, a sergeant in the Army, was severely injured due to a landmine explosion. As a result of his injury, the applicant was accepted as a “disabled veteran” and was subjected to early retirement. On 5 April 2010 the applicant brought proceedings before the SMAC, claiming compensation. On 12 January 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2010/832E, 2011/28K). On 13 April 2011 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected (No. 2011/570E, 2011/503K). On 27 April 2011 the final decision was notified to him. | |
1293/12 | 01/12/2011 | Cem ÜNAL 07/09/1985 Eskişehir | Cihan KOÇ | Several criminal cases were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army. Subsequently, on 16 June 2010 he was dismissed due to disciplinary issues. On 23 July 2010 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the dismissal decision annulled. On 5 April 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2011/55E, 2011/806K). On 12 July 2011 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request and imposed a fine as a result of his unsuccessful request for rectification on the basis of the section 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (No. 2011/1156E, 2011/1283K). On 29 July 2011 the final decision was notified to him. | |
6214/12 | 29/12/2011 | Çağrı GÜLER 16/04/1982 Izmir | Mehmet SEVER | Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army, for having insulted the Prime Minister. When the application was introduced, criminal proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. On 26 May 2010 the applicant was dismissed from the army for disciplinary reasons. On 9 July 2010, the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the dismissal decision annulled. On 22 March 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2010/892E, 2011/660). On 19 July 2011 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected (No. 2011/1268E, 2011/1304K) On 15 August 2011 the final decision was notified to him. | |
8823/12 | 05/12/2011 | Fırat SARI 23/06/1975 Edirne | Ayşenur DEMİRKALE | The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of a decision regarding his military rank alleging that he should have been granted a higher rank for his compulsory military service. On 2 February 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2010/1026E, 2011/160K). On 25 May 2011 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2011/743E, 2011/687K). The final decision was notified to the applicant on 18 July 2011. | |
11883/12 | 29/12/2011 | Baki AKSOY 18/12/1970 Ankara | Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army, for smuggling. On 4 June 2010 he was dismissed on the ground that he had committed acts undermining professional values. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 22 February 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2010/823E, 2011/551K). On 14 June 2011 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2011/1061E, 2011/1147K). | ||
14262/12 | 07/02/2012 | Ali ERTAN 20/03/1980 Aydın | Recep SELÇUK | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to disciplinary reasons. On 16 March 2011 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 25 October 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2011/641E, 2011/1678K). On 27 December 2011 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2011/1898, 2011/1967K). | |
14518/12 | 18/01/2012 | Zeydin ATEŞ 23/10/1979 İstanbul | The applicant, a lieutenant in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to disciplinary reasons. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 29 March 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2010/598E, 2011/739K). On 05 July 2011 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2011/1182E, 2011/1259K). The final decision was notified to the applicant on 18 July 2011. | ||
20923/12 | 01/03/2012 | Yıldırım Yaşar ÇILTAŞ 20/05/1967 Manisa | Olgun DEMIR | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was severely injured on duty in an accident. On 15 March 2010 he was discharged from the army on the ground that he was not medically fit for military service. Subsequently, he applied to the Social Security Institute asking for determination of his disability benefits under the section 21 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). His application was rejected.On 11 November 2010 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the decision of the Social Security Institute annulled. On 15 September 2011 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (No. 2011/721E, 2011/1855K). | |
22020/12 | 13/03/2012 | Rıdvan KÖSE 01/01/1981 İzmir | The applicant, a sergeant in the Army, was dismissed due to disciplinary reasons. On 07 March 2011 he initiated proceedings before the “SMAC” to have the annulment of that decision. On 25 October 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2011/775E, 2011/1673K). | ||
23787/12 | 22/03/2012 | Nail ÇELİK 01/07/1958 İstanbul Nezahat ÇELİK 05/12/1960 İstanbul Sezai ÇELİK 05/02/1986 İstanbul Elif BÖYÜKVURAL 22/05/1981 İstanbul | Hayrettin AÇıKGÖZ | The applicants’ relative died during his military service due to a mine explosion. The applicants initiated compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Defence before the SMAC. On 15 June 2011 the SMAC dismissed the case in respect of some of the applicants, who had already received compensation. On the other hand, it partially accepted the remaining applicants’ compensation claims (No. 2011/182E., 2011/838K.). The applicants’ rectification request was also rejected on 21 September 2011 (No. 2011/1129 E., 2011/1096K.) The final decision was notified on them 3 October 2011. | |
24731/12 | 14/03/2012 | Erkin Erdem KARA 01/02/1968 Ankara | The applicant, a major in the Army, was suspended from his post in 2002 due to criminal proceedings initiated against him. In 2010 criminal proceedings were discontinued on the ground that the prosecution of the offence in question had become time-barred. Asking to be granted his lost personal and pecuniary rights, the applicant applied to the administration. His request was dismissed. The case he initiated before the SMAC with a view to annulment of this decision and seeking non-pecuniary compensation was rejected on 24 May 2011 (No. 2010/1048E, 2011/1074K). On 20 September 2011 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2011/1405E, 2011/1435K). The final decision was served on 30 September 2011. | ||
26763/12 | 22/03/2012 | İsmail YILDIZ 01/01/1964 İstanbul Kezban YILDIZ 01/01/1969 İstanbul Arzu YILDIZ 01/01/1992 İstanbul Nadir YILDIZ 01/01/1984 Kastamonu Mustafa YıLDıZ 01/01/1986 İstanbul | Hayrettin AÇıKGÖZ | The applicants are the relatives of Mr A.Y., who died during his military service due to a mine explosion. The applicants initiated compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Defence before the SMAC. On 8 June 2011 the SMAC dismissed the case in respect of some applicants, who had already received compensation. On the other hand, it partially accepted the remaining applicants’ compensation claims (2011/146E., 2011/871K.). The applicants’ rectification request was also rejected on 28 September 2011 (2011/1179E., 2011/1143K.) | |
27240/12 | 12/04/2012 | Erdal ERGÜL 01/01/1971 Ankara | Ali Ersin GÜR | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. At the time, his objections were rejected by the competent domestic courts. In 2010 a new Law was enacted in order to reinstate certain military personnel. The applicant’s request to benefit from these provisions was rejected as his situation was not one of the circumstances indicated in the abovementioned Law. On 22 June 2010 the applicant brought an action before the SMAC and requested the annulment of that decision. On 15 March 2012 the SMAC dismissed the case (No. 2011/2585E, 2012/506K). | |
27364/12 | 09/04/2012 | Yavuz AYKUT 30/05/1970 Izmir | Mehmet Tahsin SONER | Compensation proceedings initiated by the applicant before the SMAC were dismissed on 22 June 2011 (no. 2010/4449E, 2010/1326K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 19 October 2011 (no. 2011/1314E, 2011/1280K). | |
31706/12 | 09/04/2012 | Vedat SEVİK 01/01/1978 Diyarbakır | Serdar ÇELEBİ | The applicant, an officer in the Army, allegedly suffered from a mental disorder. According to the applicant, although he should have been entitled to retirement on account of his condition, he was dismissed for disciplinary reasons. The case initiated by the applicant to have the annulment of that decision was dismissed by the SMAC on 14 September 2011 (no. 2010/619E, 2011/1388K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 29 November 2011 (2011/1682E., 2011/1792K.). | |
33469/12 | 27/03/2012 | Cemal ALTUNTAŞ 22/12/1971 Istanbul | Haydar YILDIRIM | During his military service, the applicant was injured and he became permanently disabled. He brought proceedings before the SMAC to obtain a veteran pension. On 1 December 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2010/587E., 2011/2475K.) The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 8 March 2012 (2012/544E., 2012/326K.) | |
47382/12 | 11/05/2012 | Ali KAR 09/03/1941 Istanbul | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed due to disciplinary reasons. On 24 March 2011 he applied to the administration, asking to benefit from Law no. 6191 which was enacted on 22 March 2011. His request was dismissed on 14 September 2011. The proceedings he initiated before the SMAC was dismissed on 22 March 2012 (No. 2011/2537E, 2012/858K). | ||
50037/12 | 22/05/2012 | Burak ŞAHİN 20/06/1989 Mersin | Abdurrahman SARI | During his compulsory military service, the applicant was declared unfit for service due to hearing loss. He initiated compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Defence before the SMAC alleging that his pre-existing condition deteriorated during the military service. On 1 February 2012 the SMAC dismissed the case (No. 2011/1590E, 2012/82K). | |
50731/12 | 05/06/2012 | Refik BENER 15/05/1972 Ankara | Hayrettin AÇıKGÖZ | The applicant’s relative died during his military service due to a mine explosion. The applicant initiated compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Defence before the SMAC. On 7 December the SMAC partially accepted his non-pecuniary compensation claims. (No. 2011/621E, 2011/1520K) | |
58929/12 | 21/06/2012 | Murat KAYNAR 09/06/1977 Izmir | Ahmet KAHVECİ | The applicant is a civil officer in the Turkish Army. On 13 October 2011 the case he had initiated before the SMAC was rejected on the ground that there was no administrative action at issue (No. 2011/2221E, 2011/2130K). On 16 February 2012 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2012/393E, 2011/171K). On 01 March 2012 the final decision was notified to him. | |
58934/12 | 21/06/2012 | Haydar TAN 03/03/1964 Istanbul Hacer TAN 20/06/1961 Istanbul | Esmani KIRMIZI | The applicants are the parents of Mr. M.T., who died in an accident during his compulsory military service. They applied to the administration requesting that the status of martyr be awarded to their son. On 25 March 2011 their request was rejected. On 10 May 2011 the applicants initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 17 November 2011 the SMAC dismissed the applicants’ case (No. 2011/2030E, 2011/2480K). On 19 April 2012 the SMAC further rejected the applicants’ rectification request (No. 2012/842E, 2012/955K). On 14 May 2012, the final decision was notified to the applicants. | |
63032/12 | 02/08/2012 | İlker KARCI 21/07/1978 Denizli | Savaş BAYTOK | On 2 June 2006 criminal proceedings for abuse of office were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army. On 9 November 2010 the applicant was found guilty as charged. Subsequently, on 14 May 2011 he was dismissed from his post due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 5 April 2011 the SMAC dismissed the case (No. 2011/2303E, 2011/975K). On 15 May 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2012/661E, 2012/595K). | |
63822/12 | 01/08/2012 | Halil ATEŞ 22/03/1981 Adana | Mehmet Sadık LIMAN | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to disciplinary problems. The proceedings he initiated to have that decision annulled were dismissed by the SMAC on 3 April 2011(No. 2011/4075E, 2011/1483K). On 12 June 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2012/851E, 2012/729K). | |
66039/12 | 03/09/2012 | Özgür ÖZTÜRK 03/01/1977 Ankara | Songül ÖZTÜRK | The applicant, a veterinary doctor in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC following the refusal of his request to benefit from certain pecuniary rights that were awarded to medical doctors. On 29 December 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (No. 2011/811E, 2011/2825K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 10 May 2012 (2012/1030E., 2011/2825K.). | |
66631/12 | 19/09/2012 | Ahmet Behçet HOŞCAN 12/04/1969 İstanbul | In 1999 the applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post. At the material time, the legislation did not allow the applicant to initiate proceedings against that decision. Following the amendment of domestic law in 2011, the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC requesting compensation for his unlawful dismissal. On 17 May 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (No. 2011/2795E, 2012/1273K). | ||
66868/12 | 23/08/2012 | Remzi Taner AKÇAKANAT 12/06/1969 Ankara | Fikret ŞEN | The applicant brought compensation proceedings before the SMAC. On 22 February 2012 the SMAC dismissed the case (no. 2011/1333E, 2012/192K). His rectification request was rejected on 23 May 2012 (no. 2012/460E, 2012/555K). | |
68108/12 | 29/08/2012 | Ahmet KANAK 01/04/1965 Ankara | Kaya YELEK | On 1 April 2009 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army, for smuggling. When the application was introduced, criminal proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. Subsequently, on 4 September 2009 he was dismissed from the Army due to disciplinary reasons. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the dismissal decision annulled. On 7 December 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (2009/1148E., 2011/1875K.). On 6 March 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (2012/286E., 2012/233K.). | |
70783/12 | 06/09/2012 | Şevket KIRAÇ 05/09/1987 Mardin | Ali AYDEMIR | The applicant was declared unfit for compulsory military service and he was discharged on 5 May 2010. Seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation, the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC. He alleged that his health problems occurred because of the compulsory military service. On 16 May 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2011/1501E., 2012/573K.). | |
72723/12 | 03/09/2012 | Volkan İPEKÇİOĞLU 24/08/1973 Istanbul | Songül ÖZTÜRK | The applicant, a veterinary doctor in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC following the refusal of his request to benefit from certain pecuniary rights that were awarded to medical doctors. On 20 January 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2011/986E., 2011/135K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 26 April 2012 (2012/1070E., 2012/955 K.). | |
80443/12 | 30/10/2012 | Cem KÖZ 22/11/1969 Ankara | Necati ŞEKERCİOĞLU | The applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the SMAC. On 28 December 2011 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s case (2011/1195E., 2011/1576K.). The applicant’s rectification request was rejected on 18 April 2012 (2012/353E., 2012/399K.) and the decision was served to the applicant’s representative on 30 April 2012. | |
81701/12 | 22/10/2012 | Nejdet AĞAÇ 27/03/1988 Kars | Uğur CEYHAN | During his compulsory military service, the applicant was declared unfit for military service and he was discharged. Seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation, the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC alleging that his health problems had occurred due to compulsory military service. On 1 February 2012 the SMAC dismissed the case (2010/865E., 2012/93K.). On 25 April 2012 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (2012/379E., 2012/440K.). | |
109/13 | 19/09/2012 | Emrah ELDOĞAN 16/08/1986 Adana | Halit Bülent OK | The applicant was injured during his compulsory military service. He initiated compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Defence before the SMAC. On 8 February 2012 the SMAC partially accepted the applicant’s compensation claims (2011/5E., 2012/117K). On 6 June 2012 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s rectification request (2012/517E., 2012/616K.). | |
2023/13 | 16/11/2012 | Mustafa SAYIN 11/03/1984 Ankara | The applicant, a military officer, brought proceedings before the SMAC seeking the reimbursement of travel expenses for a compulsory training that he had to attend. On 5 January 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case (2011/1180E., 2012/6K.) His rectification request was also rejected on 26 April 2012 (2012/950E., 2012/1024K.) and the decision was served on the applicant on 21 May 2012. | ||
8935/13 | 10/12/2012 | Şerif KESKİN 22/09/1955 Lefkoşe Ahmet Doğan BEYARSLAN 10/12/1957 Kocaeli | Ahmet Doğan BEYARSLAN | The applicants, officers in the Army, were dismissed due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. In 2010 a new Law was enacted in order to reinstate certain military personnel. The applicants’ requests to benefit from these provisions were rejected as their situations were not covered by the said law. On 17 May 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicants’ cases (2011/2392E., 2012/1246K. and 2011/2391E., 2012/1244K.) and the decisions were served to the applicants’ representative on 19 June 2012. | |
9917/13 | 01/10/2012 | Yavuz AYKUT 30/05/1970 Izmir | Mehmet Tahsin SONER | The applicant, an officer in the Army, initiated compensation proceedings before the SMAC. On 29 December 2011 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s case (2011/1890E., 2011/2001K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 17 April 2012 (2012/291E., 2012/404K.). | |
11844/13 | 20/12/2012 | Halil SOLAK 23/04/1981 Kastamonu | Yıldıray BELEN | On 12 April 2010 the applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post as he was declared unfit to serve. The applicant requested to benefit from disabled veteran provisions. Upon the rejection of his request, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC. On 15 December 2011 the SMAC dismissed the case (2011/2545E., 2011/2815K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 13 September 2012 (2012/1208E., 2012/1630K). | |
12345/13 | 28/05/2012 | Kadir KÜÇÜK 14/04/1990 Ankara | Cavit ÇALIŞ | On 26 July 2011 the applicant was dismissed from military school due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. On 3 August 2011 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court and requested the annulment of his dismissal. On 21 December 2011 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case (no. 2011/1110E, 2011/1581/K). On 18 April 2012 the applicant’s request for rectification was rejected by the same court (no. 2012/339E, 2012/414K). | |
19950/13 | 08/03/2013 | Yarullah ÇALIŞ 02/03/1950 Eskisehir | Gökhan TÜRK | The applicant, a cadet in the Air Force Academy, was expelled due to disciplinary reasons in 1973. On 29 March 2011 he applied to the administration, asking to benefit from Law no. 6191 which was enacted on 22 March 2011 to reinstate certain military staff. His request was rejected on 20 April 2011. The proceedings he initiated before the SMAC was dismissed on 20 September 2012 (2011/1997E., 2012/1879K.) and the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected on 7 January 2013 (2013/20E., 2013/4K). | |
20035/13 | 11/03/2013 | Turgut ASLAN 08/07/1989 Aksaray | Furkan Memiş MUTLU | During his compulsory military service, the applicant was declared unfit for military service and he was discharged. Alleging that his health conditions had deteriorated due to his military service, the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the SMAC. On 14 March 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case (2011/1304E., 2012/288K.). On 12 September 2012 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected (2012/544E., 2012/708K). | |
20711/13 | 20/03/2013 | Şerafettin AKKUŞ 15/01/1946 Ankara | ALİ RIZA BİLDİK | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed due to disciplinary reasons. On 25 March 2011 he applied to the administration, asking to benefit from Law no. 6191 which was enacted on 22 March 2011 in order to reinstate certain military staff. His request was rejected on 16 September 2011. The proceedings he initiated before the SMAC was dismissed on 12 April 2012 (2011/2916E., 2012/911K.). On 14 September 2012 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (2012/1411E., 2012/1652K.). | |
21955/13 | 08/03/2013 | Mustafa Kemal ÖZKAN 13/08/1951 Canakkale | Gökhan TÜRK | The applicant, a cadet in the Air Force Academy, was expelled due to disciplinary reasons in 1973. On 20 April 2011 he applied to the administration, asking to benefit from Law no. 6191 which was enacted on 22 March 2011 in order to reinstate certain military staff. His request was dismissed on 31 May 2011. The proceedings he initiated before the SMAC was dismissed on 20 September 2012 (2011/2959 E., 2012/1851 K.). | |
22105/13 | 08/03/2013 | Mustafa OLAŞ 13/01/1959 Izmir | The applicant, a cadet in the Turkish Military Academy, was expelled due to disciplinary reasons in 1980. On 6 April 2011 he applied to the administration, asking to benefit from Law no. 6191 which was enacted on 22 March 2011. His request was rejected on 6 May 2011. The proceedings he initiated before the SMAC was dismissed on 20 September 2012 (2011/1887E., 2012/1859K.) and the decision was notified to the applicant on 2 October 2012. | ||
74864/13 | 18/11/2013 | Yaşasın ASLAN 28/08/1969 Balikesir | The applicant, an officer in the Army, requested to be dispensed from compulsory guard duty due to his health conditions, however, it was rejected. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 27 April 2012 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s case (2011/1155E., 2012/1177K.). His rectification request was further rejected on 6 December 2012 (2012/1800E, 2012/2353K). His individual application request (2013/1134) was rejected by the Constitutional Court (“the TCC”) on 16 May 2013 and the decision was notified to the applicant on 7 June 2013. | ||
3642/14 | 11/12/2013 | Ali İhsan YAYLACI 03/10/1969 Denizli | Utku CAĞIRGAN | The applicant, a sergeant in the Army, was dismissed due to disciplinary reasons in 1993. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to former military staff who had been dismissed by decisions which had not been subject to any judicial review, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. His request was rejected. Subsequently he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have this decision annulled. On 26 April 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case stating that his case could not be regarded within the scope of the amendment since his dismissal had been subject to judicial review at the time (No. 2012/102E, 2012/1032K). On 18 October 2012 the SMAC rejected his rectification request (No. 2012/1589E, 2012/2047K). On 8 July 2013 his individual application to the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) was declared inadmissible. The final decision was notified to him on 27 August 2013. | |
11605/14 | 24/01/2014 | Hasan ÖZDEMİR 17/03/1976 Ankara | Murat ALBAYRAK | The applicant, a civil officer in the Army, applied to the administration requesting that his job title be amended. His request was dismissed. On 19 December 2012 the case he had initiated before the SMAC was rejected (No. 2012/1232E, 2012/1244K). On 30 September 2013 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. | |
15242/14 | 12/02/2014 | Ergün Ahmet AKÇA 18/06/1962 Istanbul | Nejdet GÖĞÜSDERE | The applicant, a cadet, was expelled from the military school in 1982. Following the enactment of a new law, providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to ex-military personnel who were dismissed by decisions which were not subject to any judicial review, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. His request was dismissed. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 20 September 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case stating that his case could not be regarded within the scope of the amendment since he had not been a military officer in the army on the date of his expulsion (No. 2011/2073E, 2012/1881K). On 31 January 2013 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2013/148E, 2013/97K). On 9 July 2013 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. The final decision was notified to him on 20 August 2013. | |
16239/14 | 12/02/2014 | Mehmet EŞGIN 15/06/1962 Istanbul | Nejdet GÖĞÜSDERE | The applicant, a cadet, was expelled from military school in 1982. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to ex-military personnel who were dismissed by decisions which were not subject to any judicial review, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. His request was dismissed. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 20 September 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case stating that his case could not be regarded within the scope of the amendment since he had not been a military officer in the army on the date of his expulsion (No. 2011/1917E, 2012/1847K). On 17 January 2013 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2013/99E, 2013/32K). On 30 September 2013 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. | |
17198/14 | 12/02/2014 | Hüseyin Tamer HAVA 02/06/1965 Eskisehir | Altan ULUTAŞ | The applicant, a military officer, applied to be assigned to an academic post. However, another candidate was appointed to that post. On 3 July 2012 the case he had initiated before the SMAC for the annulment of that decision was dismissed (No. 2011/1615E, 2012/784K). On 20 November 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2012/1405E, 2012/1232K). On 9 July 2013 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. The final decision was notified to him on 14 August 2013. | |
17267/14 | 13/02/2014 | Mustafa YUNUSOĞLU 07/06/1950 Istanbul | The applicant, a cadet, was expelled from the military school in 1972. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to ex-military personnel who were dismissed by decisions which were not subject to any judicial review, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. His request was dismissed. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the impugned decision annulled. On 20 September 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case stating that his case could not be regarded within the scope of the amendment since he had not been a military officer in the army on the date of his expulsion (No. 2011/1837E, 2012/1866K). On 28 February 2013 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2013/303E, 2013/259K). On 9 January 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. The final decision was notified to him on 4 February 2014. | ||
20080/14 | 27/02/2014 | Murat TAŞKIN 23/02/1972 Antalya | The applicant, a sergeant, was dismissed from the Army due to disciplinary reasons in 2001. The administrative proceedings he initiated against his dismissal were rejected. This decision became final on 10 February 2004. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to ex-military personnel who were dismissed by decisions which were not subject to any judicial review, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. His request was dismissed. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have this latter decision annulled. On 12 April 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case stating that it could not be regarded within the scope of the amendment since his dismissal had been subject to judicial review at the material time (No. 2011/2799E, 2012/904K). On 1 November 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2012/1648E, 2012/2132K). On 24 October 2013 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. | ||
20166/14 | 28/02/2014 | Kurtuluş KAYA 22/11/1959 Istanbul | Hüseyın Mitat TOMBAK | The applicant, a cadet, was expelled from the military school in 1981. The proceedings he initiated against his expulsion were rejected on 26 May 1982. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to ex-military personnel who were dismissed by decisions which were not subject to any judicial review, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. His request was dismissed. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have this latter decision annulled. On 4 October 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case stating that his case could not be regarded within the scope of the amendment since he had not been a military officer in the army on the date of his expulsion (No. 2011/2183E, 2012/1952K). On 20 December 2013 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. | |
21222/14 | 07/03/2014 | Mustafa AŞAN 20/09/1952 Samsun | The applicant, a sergeant, was dismissed from the Army due to disciplinary reasons in 1982. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to ex-military personnel who were dismissed by decisions which were not subject to any judicial review, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. His request was rejected. Subsequently he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the impugned decision annulled. On 19 April 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case stating that his case could not be regarded within the scope of the amendment since his dismissal had been subject to judicial review on the material date (No. 2011/2559E, 2012/1063K). On 1 November 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2012/1248E, 2012/2134K). On 26 September 2013 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. | ||
39978/14 | 07/05/2014 | Salih KARAKOÇ 29/05/1969 Hakkari | Ali CAN | The applicant, an officer in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of a decision regarding his assignment to another military unit in Hakkari, claiming that he would not be able to continue his infertility treatment there. On 15 November 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2012/725E, 2012/1213K). On 2 April 2013 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2013/20E, 2013/344K). On 19 December 2013 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. The final decision was notified to him on 10 January 2014 | |
43372/14 | 23/05/2014 | Şeref Zekai KOLAK 01/10/1964 Ankara | Yasin TEKAKÇA | The applicant, a military officer, was dismissed by the decision of High Military Council in 1987. At the material time such decisions were not subject to judicial review. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to this type of ex-military personnel, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. After his initial request had been accepted, he once again applied to the administration claiming that he had been deprved of his pecuniary rights. His request was dismissed. Subsequently he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the impugned decision annulled. On 14 March 2013 the SMAC rejected his case on the ground the said law did not provide any terms regarding past pecuniary rights (No. 2012/1703E, 2013/362K). On 11 July 2013 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2013/845E, 2013/958K). On 28 February 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. On 25 March 2014 the final decision was notified to him. | |
43389/14 | 23/05/2014 | Nedim YALÇIN 10/01/1963 Ankara | Yasin TEKAKÇA | The applicant, a military officer, was dismissed by the decision of High Military Council in 1987. At the material time such decisions were not subject to judicial review. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to this type of ex-military personnel, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. After his initial request had been accepted, he once again applied to the administration claiming his he had been deprived of pecuniary benefits since his dismissal. His request was dismissed. Subsequently he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 15 November 2012 the SMAC rejected his case on the ground that the said law did not provide any terms regarding past pecuniary rights (No. 2012/1040E, 2012/2251K). On 28 February 2013 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2013/293E, 2013/266K). On 30 January 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. On 15 February 2014 the final decision was notified to him. | |
44483/14 | 23/05/2014 | Erkan Ahmet ÜNAL 23/02/1965 Ankara | Yasin TEKAKÇA | The applicant, a military officer, was dismissed by the decision of High Military Council in 1987. At the material time such decisions were not subject to judicial review. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to this type of ex-military personnel, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. After his initial request had been accepted, he once again applied to the administration claiming he had been deprived of pecuniary rights since his dismissal. His request was dismissed. Subsequently he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the impugned decision annulled. On 15 November 2012 the SMAC rejected his case on the ground that the new law did not provide for any specific terms regarding past pecuniary rights (No. 2012/1039E, 2012/2248K). On 28 February 2013 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request. (No. 2013/285E, 2013/264K) On 30 January 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. The final decision was notified to him on 4 March 2014. | |
44511/14 | 23/05/2014 | İbrahim TARIM 15/01/1965 Manisa | Yasin TEKAKÇA | The applicant, a military officer, was dismissed from his post by the decision of High Military Council in 1987. At the material time such decisions were not subject to judicial review. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to this type of ex-military personnel, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. After his initial request had been accepted, he once again applied to the administration claiming that he had been deprived of his pecuniary rights since his dismissal. His request was dismissed. Subsequently he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the impugned decision annulled. On 15 November 2012 the SMAC rejected his case on the ground that new law did not provide for any specific terms regarding past pecuniary rights (No. 2012/1045E, 2012/2249K). On 28 February 2013 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2013/282E, 2013/263K). On 26 February 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. The final decision was notified to him on 25 March 2014. | |
44619/14 | 23/05/2014 | Burhan GÖKER 08/05/1965 Ankara | Yasin TEKAKÇA | The applicant, a military officer, was dismissed from his post by the decision of High Military Council in 1987. At the material time such decisions were not subject to judicial review. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to this type of ex-military personnel, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. After his initial request had been accepted, he once again applied to the administration claiming his had ben deprived of his pecuniary rights since his dismissal. His request was dismissed. Subsequently he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the impugned decision annulled. On 15 November 2012 the SMAC rejected his case on the ground that new law did not provide for any specific terms regarding past pecuniary rights (No. 2012/1042E, 2012/2250K). On 28 February 2013 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request. (No. 2013/288E, 2013/265K) On 24 January 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. The final decision was notified to him on 15 February 2014. | |
44622/14 | 23/05/2014 | Mustafa Kemal SUNGUR 20/11/1963 Virginia | Yasin TEKAKÇA | The applicant, a military officer, was dismissed from his post by the decision of High Military Council in 1987. At the material time such decisions were not subject to judicial review. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to this type of ex-military personnel, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. After his initial request had been accepted, he once again applied to the administration claiming his had been deprived of his pecuniary rights since his dismissal. His request was dismissed. Subsequently he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the impugned decision annulled. On 22 November 2012 the SMAC rejected his case on the ground that new law did not provide for any specific terms regarding past pecuniary rights (No. 2012/1038E, 2012/2286K). On 21 March 2013 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2013/376E, 2013/381K). On 6 March 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. | |
47239/14 | 13/06/2014 | Şeref BÜYÜKKÖSE 07/01/1972 Siirt | Adem DEMIR | The applicant, a sergeant, was dismissed from his post due to disciplinary reasons. On 28 March 2012 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 18 December 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2012/496E, 2011/1511K). On 30 April 2013 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2013/469E, 2013/490K). On 17 April 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. The final decision was notified to him on 28 April 2014. | |
50367/14 | 16/06/2014 | Kemal BAYKAN 25/02/1964 Istanbul | İbrahim BAYKAN | The applicant, a lieutenant in the Army, was dismissed due to his marriage to a foreign national in 1995. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to ex-military personnel who were dismissed by decisions which were not subject to any judicial review, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. His request was rejected. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the impugned decision annulled. On 19 April 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case stating that his case could not be regarded within the scope of the amendment since his dismissal had been subject to judicial review on the material date (No. 2012/285E, 2012/987K). On 8 November 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2012/1716E, 2012/2184K). On 28 February 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. | |
50475/14 | 07/07/2014 | Sedat DOĞAN 20/10/1973 Konya | The applicant, a sergeant major in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of a decision regarding his assignment to another military unit. On 15 November 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2012/733E, 2012/1247K). On 2 April 2013 his rectification request was also rejected (No. 2013/374E, 2013/352K). On 11 March 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. | ||
50807/14 | 07/07/2014 | Ahmet GÜLER 02/05/1970 Konya | The applicant, a sergeant major in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of a decision regarding his assignment to another military unit. On 20 November 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2012/726E, 2012/1237K). His rectification request was also rejected on 26 February 2013 (No. 2013/255E, 2013/232K). On 14 March 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. | ||
51808/14 | 07/07/2014 | Yiğit Emre SALCI 15/03/1973 Konya | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was assigned to another military unit without his consent. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 27 November 2012, the SMAC rejected the applicant’s case (2012/723E., 2012/1388K). His rectification request was further rejected on 30 April 2013 (2013/464E., 2013/501K). His individual application (2013/4037) was rejected by the TCC on 27 May 2014 and the decision was notified to the applicant on 6 June 2014. | ||
56768/14 | 08/08/2014 | Ercan ŞAHINBEY 02/04/1972 İstanbul | Gültekin ÖZKURT | In 1996, the applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. In 2010 a new Law was enacted in order to reinstate certain military personnel. The applicant’s request to benefit from these provisions was approved and he was reinstated. To recover this alleged financial loss during his unemployment period, the applicant brought an action before the SMAC. On 20 December 2012 the SMAC dismissed the case (2012/1251E., 2012/2489K.) The applicant’s rectification request was rejected on 16 May 2013 (2013/588E., 2013/708K.). His individual application (2013/4671) was rejected by the TCC and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 14 February 2014. | |
62866/14 | 03/09/2014 | İsmail CANKARDEŞ 05/01/1948 Istanbul | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules in 1971. In 2010 a new Law was enacted in order to reinstate certain military personnel. The applicant’s request to benefit from these provisions was rejected as his situation was not one of the circumstances indicated in the abovementioned Law. On 26 April 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2011/2695E., 2012/1358K.) and his rectification request was rejected on 1 November 2012 (2012/1666E., 2012/2115K.). His individual application (2013/1263) was also rejected by the TCC and the decision was notified to the applicant on 20 March 2014. | ||
69222/14 | 09/10/2014 | Mehmet ŞARLAK 21/09/1981 Batman | Cihan KOÇ | The applicant, an officer in the Army, initiated compensation proceedings before the SMAC. On 17 May 2012 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s case (2011/1736E., 2012/623K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 3 October 2012 (2012/1209E., 2012/893K). His individual application (2012/621) was rejected by the TCC and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 8 September 2014. In the meantime, the criminal proceedings that had been initiated against the applicant ended on 5 October 2011. | |
69588/14 | 13/10/2014 | Hamdi MINTAŞ 17/03/1964 Ankara | Kadir GÜNDOĞAN | The applicant, a flight technician in the status of officer in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC following the refusal of his request to benefit from certain pecuniary rights that were awarded to pilots. On 21 March 2013 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2012/1407E., 2013/440K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 3 October 2013 (2013/671E., 2013/1165K.). His individual application (2013/7946) was rejected by the TCC on 27 May 2014 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 14 April 2014. | |
69933/14 | 13/10/2014 | Ertuğrul YILMAZ 10/11/1969 Kocaeli | Kadir GÜNDOĞAN | The applicant, a flight technician in the status of officer in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC following the refusal of his request to benefit from certain pecuniary rights that were awarded to pilots. On 31 January 2013 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2012/1078E., 2013/195K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 23 May 2013 (2013/621E., 2013/743K.). His individual application (2013/4236) was rejected by the TCC on 31 April 2014 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 11 April 2014. | |
70831/14 | 24/10/2014 | Ayhan SERTEL 01/08/1972 Sirnak | Kadir GÜNDOĞAN | The applicant, an officer in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of a decision regarding his assignment to another military unit. On 16 January 2013 the SMAC dismissed his case (2012/809E., 2013/36K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 18 June 2013 (2013/562E., 2013/704K.). His individual application (2013/5613) was rejected by the TCC on 17 April 2014 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 28 April 2014. | |
5437/15 | 16/01/2015 | Ali Önder GÜNGÖR 04/12/1980 Adana | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was not allowed to participate in an exam for military academy due to his disciplinary situation. He then initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 9 October 2013 the SMAC dismissed the case (2012/433E., 2013/1201K.). His individual application (2014/1617) was rejected by the TCC on 25 November 2014 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 20 December 2014. | ||
29242/15 | 03/06/2015 | İsmail Buğra İŞLEK 02/07/1976 Izmir | Aykanat KAÇMAZ | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules in 2009. In 2010 a new Law was enacted in order to reinstate certain military personnel. The applicant’s request to benefit from these provisions was rejected. On 6 December 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2012/365E., 2012/1370K.). On 9 April 2013 the SMAC further rejected the rectification request (2013/439E, 2013/386K). His individual application (2013/3270) was rejected by the TCC on 27 January 2015 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 19 February 2015. | |
30055/15 | 05/06/2015 | Haşim KARA 08/04/1954 Istanbul | Süleyman ÜLKER | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules in 1981. In 2010 a new Law was enacted in order to reinstate certain military personnel. The applicant’s request to benefit from these provisions was rejected. On 20 November 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case ( 2012/582E., 2012/1252K.). On 28 February 2013 the SMAC further rejected the rectification request (2013/254E., 2013/326K). His individual application (2013/2327) was rejected by the TCC on 27 December 2014 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 9 February 2015. | |
48311/15 | 15/09/2015 | Baybars ÇINARLI 11/07/1975 Mersin | On 2 December 2008, the applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. He applied to the administration, asking to benefit from Law no. 6191 which was enacted on 22 March 2011 in order to reinstate certain military personnel. His request was rejected on 6 June 2011. The proceedings he initiated before the SMAC was dismissed on 4 December 2012 (2012/393E., 2012/1345K.). On 26 February 2013, the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (2013/729E., 2013/227K.). His individual application request (no. 2013/2349) was rejected by the TCC on 20 November 2014 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 17 March 2015. | ||
52320/15 | 30/09/2015 | Naci ÜNLÜ 09/05/1968 Ankara | Yasin TEKAKÇA | On 23 October 2012 the applicant, a sergeant in the Army, was dismissed due to disciplinary reasons. He then initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 3 July 2013 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2013/92E., 2013/793K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 19 November 2013 (2013/1134E., 2013/1114K.). His individual application (2014/338) was rejected by the TCC on 10 April 2015 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 26 May 2015. | |
53196/15 | 09/10/2015 | Mustafa YALÇIN 04/05/1962 Ankara | Nejdet GÖĞÜSDERE | The applicant, a cadet in the Military Academy, was expelled due to disciplinary reasons in 1982. He applied to the administration, asking to benefit from Law no. 6191 which was enacted on 22 March 2011 and asked to be reinstated. His request was dismissed on 13 June 2011. The proceedings he initiated before the SMAC was dismissed on 20 September 2012 (2011/1984E., 2012/1863K.). On 17 January 2013 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request. (2013/71E., 2013/34 K.). His individual application (2013/1563) was rejected by the TCC on 31 March 2015 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 28 April 2015. | |
4459/16 | 22/12/2015 | Mahmut KAYAHAN 17/06/1969 Manisa | Fevzi AKSOY | The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules in 2007. In 2010 a new Law was enacted in order to reinstate certain military personnel. The applicant’s request to benefit from these provisions was rejected as his situation was not one of the conditions indicated in the abovementioned Law. On 9 October 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2012/449E., 2012/1063K.) and the further rectification request rejected on 29 January 2013 (2013/100E., 2013/103K.). His individual application (2013/1679) was rejected by the TCC and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 8 July 2015. | |
11385/16 | 04/02/2016 | Erkan ÖLMEZ 20/12/1981 Çorum | Erhan TEZCAN | The applicant was a sergeant in the Army. His contract was not renewed due to disciplinary reasons. He then initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 18 March 2014 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2013/793E., 2014/284K.). The applicant’s rectification request was rejected on 16 September 2014 (2014/1018E., 2014/776K.). His individual application (2014/17499) was rejected by the TCC on 24 July 2015 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 21 August 2015. | |
11432/16 | 12/02/2016 | Ersoy ÖZTÜRK 02/08/1977 Ankara | Necati ŞEKERCİOĞLU | The applicant, an officer in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have an appraisal report annulled. On 10 September 2013 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2012/991E., 2013/875K.). On 5 February 2014 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (2014/155E, 2014/76K). His individual application (2014/4138) was rejected by the TCC on 22 July 2015 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 12 August 2015. | |
70285/16 | 25/10/2016 | Gökhan BİŞMİŞER 24/01/1976 Eskişehir | İlter AKSOYLU | While serving as a sergeant in Army, the applicant’s contract was terminated due to disciplinary reasons. He then initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 17 June 2014 the SMAC dismissed the case (2013/886E., 2014/648K.). The applicant’s rectification request was rejected on 11 November 2014 (2014/1190E., 2014/974K.). His individual application (2015/3) was also rejected by the TCC on 15 April 2016 and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 26 April 2016. |