Search
document

Document text Analytics

S.K. v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 28774/95 • ECHR ID: 001-4025

Document date: December 3, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

S.K. v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 28774/95 • ECHR ID: 001-4025

Document date: December 3, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

SUR LA RECEVABILITÉ

Application No. 28774/95

by S.K.

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 3 December 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs G.H. THUNE, President

MM J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 1 June 1995 by

S.K. against Turkey and registered on 27 September 1995 under file

No. 28774/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, born in 1944, is a Turkish citizen and resident

in Gönen district of Balikesir.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may

be summarised as follows.

The applicant used to work as a nurse in a military hospital in

Konya. In June 1964 she was injured in an accident between two military

vehicles. In March 1973 she was retired as she was unfit to work as a

nurse.

On 22 January 1988 she applied to the Ministry of Defence for and

was awarded a bonus under Article 3 (c) para. 1 of Law No. 2951 dated

10 November 1983, which provides for a right to a bonus for civil

servants injured on duty. She was paid 824,000 Turkish liras for 1985,

1986 and 1987.

On 16 October 1988 Law No. 2951 was repealed in accordance with

Article 7 of Law No. 3480. On 2 February 1989 the General Directorate

for Pensioners (Emekli Sandigi Genel Müdürlügü) decided that the

applicant would no longer be paid the bonus. The Directorate stated

that, in accordance with Article 3 (c) of Law No. 3480, only those who

were injured on duty because of a weapon or war equipment were eligible

for this bonus.

On 11 April 1989 the applicant applied to the Ankara

Administrative Court. She requested that the decision of the General

Directorate for Pensioners be annulled.

On 25 December 1990 the Ankara Administrative Court annulled the

General Directorate's decision of 2 February 1989.

The Directorate for Pensioners lodged an appeal with the Council

of State. It requested that the Ankara Administrative Court's judgment

be quashed as the applicant had no right to a bonus under Article 3 (c)

of Law No. 3840.

On 16 June 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the

judgment delivered by the Ankara Administrative Court. It stated that,

under Article 3 (c) of Law No. 3840, only military personnel, members

of the security forces or civil servants who were injured because of

a weapon or war equipment during manoeuvres or state of emergency

situations could benefit from the bonus. It decided that the applicant

had no right to a bonus as she was not a military person and was

injured in a situation which was not covered by Law No. 3840.

On 20 November 1992, following the decision of the Supreme

Administrative Court to quash the judgment dated 25 December 1990, the

Ankara Administrative Court rejected the applicant's request for the

bonus.

On 25 January 1993 the applicant lodged an appeal with the

Supreme Administrative Court against the Ankara Administrative Court's

judgment dated 20 November 1992. She alleged that she should be

considered a military person and that she should be granted the bonus.

On 30 June 1993 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the

applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment dated 20 November 1992. It

stated that the applicant could not be considered as a military person

and that she could not be granted a bonus in accordance with Law

No. 3840.

On 4 November 1993 the applicant applied to the Supreme

Administrative Court. She requested that the decision dated 30 June

1993 be rectified.

On 25 November 1993 the Council of State dismissed the

applicant's request for rectification. The decision was served on the

applicant on 19 December 1994.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that she did not have a fair trial as

guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. She alleges in this

respect that the Supreme Administrative Court refused to consider her

a military person who might be eligible for a bonus for having been

injured on duty.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that she did not have a fair trial as

guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. She

alleges in this respect that the Supreme Administrative Court refused

to consider her as a military person who might be eligible for a bonus

for having been injured on duty.

The Commission recalls that under Article 19 (Art. 19) of the

Convention its sole task is to ensure observance of the engagements

undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention. It is not

competent to examine applications concerning errors of law or fact

allegedly committed by the competent national authorities, which are

competent, in the first place, to interpret and apply domestic law (No.

25062/94, Dec. 18.10.95, D.R. 83 p. 77).

In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant's

complaints concern the national courts' evaluation of the facts and

evidence and the interpretation of the domestic law. The courts held

that, according to Law No. 3840, only those who are military persons

can benefit from the bonus and that the applicant could not be granted

a bonus as she was not a military person. The Commission finds no

element which would allow it to conclude that the courts established

the facts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or that they

misinterpreted the applicable provisions of the domestic law.

Therefore, there is no appearance that the refusal of the applicant's

request for the bonus was not in conformity with Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within

the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant