Communicated on 25 January 2021 Published on 15 February 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 29367/15 Haluk Selam TUFANLI against Turkey lodged on 2 June 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the refusal of the applicant, a conscientious objector, to attend reservist service for military mobilisation training for the Turkish Army in the « Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus » (the « TRNC » ) in 2011.

On 4 December 2014 the applicant was convicted by the Security Forces Court for failing to serve in the reservist service. He was sentenced to a fine of 500 Turkish liras (approximately 180 euros at the material time) and ten days ’ imprisonment in default of payment. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment, in view of the Security Forces Appel Court ’ s decision no. 1/2014, according to which the right to conscientious objection was not recognised in the domestic law of the « TRNC » .

Having defaulted payment of the fine, the applicant served his prison sentence between 4 and 12 December 2014.

According to the applicant, two additional sets of criminal proceedings (nos. 638/2014 and 643/2014) were also pending against him for refusing to present himself to two other calls to appear for reservist service in 2012 and 2013.

The applicant relies on Articles 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5, 9 and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In view of the Security Forces Appeal Court ’ s decision no. 1/2014, has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies in respect of his complaints, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of conscience, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention ( Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, ECHR 2011, and Savda v. Turkey , no. 42730/05, 12 June 2012)?

3. Does the failure of the respondent State to provide for the possibility of alternative civil service and the right to conscientious objection amount to a violation of Article 9 (see Savda , cited above, § 100)?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 9 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The parties are requested to submit factual information on the outcome of the two additional sets of criminal proceedings (nos. 638/2014 and 643/2014) which were pending against the applicant for refusing to present himself to two other calls to appear for reservist service in 2012 and 2013.