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 According to this new law, Articles 145 and 157 of the Constitution were repealed and the Supreme Military Administrative Court was abolished.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 DEMÄ°R

08/09/1976

Bursa

Fikri AKGÃœN

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 Ä°brahim AYDIN

23/04/1992

EskiÅŸehir

Faruk HATÄ°POÄžLU

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

TekirdaÄŸ

Ürfet ÇEVİK

12/01/1960

TekirdaÄŸ

Aytekin ÇEVİK

02/04/1979

TekirdaÄŸ

Bilge ÇEVİK

20/02/1987

TekirdaÄŸ

Ä°lkay 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 1 0 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 TÃœFEKCÄ°

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 GÃœL

07/11/1979

Diyarbakır

Oktay BAÄžATIR

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

Ä°zmit

Ä°smet 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 DUTAÄžACI

27/02/1972

Kilis

Ahmet BÄ°LGÄ°N

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

YaÅŸar 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 ÅžEKERCÄ°OÄžLU

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 ULUTAÅž

01/01/1974

Malatya

Zeki TAÅžKIRAN

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 DOÄžAN

10/03/1982

EskiÅŸehir

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 BÄ°LGÄ°N

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

UÅŸak

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 SERÄ°M

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

Ä°brahim 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

ReÅŸat 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 ÃœNAL

07/09/1985

EskiÅŸehir

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

AyÅŸenur DEMÄ°RKALE

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 ATEÅž

23/10/1979

Ä°stanbul

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

Ä°zmir

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

Ä°stanbul

Nezahat ÇELİK

05/12/1960

Ä°stanbul

Sezai ÇELİK

05/02/1986

Ä°stanbul

Elif BÖYÜKVURAL

22/05/1981

Ä°stanbul

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

Ä°smail YILDIZ

01/01/1964

Ä°stanbul

Kezban YILDIZ

01/01/1969

Ä°stanbul

Arzu YILDIZ

01/01/1992

Ä°stanbul

Nadir YILDIZ

01/01/1984

Kastamonu

Mustafa YıLDıZ

01/01/1986

Ä°stanbul

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 ERGÃœL

01/01/1971

Ankara

Ali Ersin GÃœR

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 SEVÄ°K

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 ALTUNTAÅž

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 ÅžAHÄ°N

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 KAHVECÄ°

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

Ä°lker KARCI

21/07/1978

Denizli

SavaÅŸ 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 ATEÅž

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

Ä°stanbul

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 ÅžEN

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 ÅžEKERCÄ°OÄžLU

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

UÄŸur 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 ELDOÄžAN

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

Åžerif KESKÄ°N

22/09/1955

LefkoÅŸe

Ahmet DoÄŸan BEYARSLAN

10/12/1957

Kocaeli

Ahmet DoÄŸan 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 MemiÅŸ 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

Åžerafettin AKKUÅž

15/01/1946

Ankara

ALÄ° RIZA BÄ°LDÄ°K

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 OLAÅž

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 Ä°hsan YAYLACI

03/10/1969

Denizli

Utku CAÄžIRGAN

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 EÅžGIN

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 ULUTAÅž

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 YUNUSOÄžLU

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 TAÅžKIN

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

KurtuluÅŸ 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 AÅžAN

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

Åžeref 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 ÃœNAL

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

Ä°brahim 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

Ä°brahim 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 DOÄžAN

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 GÃœLER

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

YiÄŸit 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 ÅžAHINBEY

02/04/1972

Ä°stanbul

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

Ä°smail CANKARDEÅž

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 ÅžARLAK

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 MINTAÅž

17/03/1964

Ankara

Kadir GÃœNDOÄžAN

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

ErtuÄŸrul YILMAZ

10/11/1969

Kocaeli

Kadir GÃœNDOÄžAN

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 GÃœNDOÄžAN

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

Ä°smail BuÄŸra Ä°ÅžLEK

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

HaÅŸim 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 ÅžEKERCÄ°OÄžLU

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

EskiÅŸehir

Ä°lter 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.