Communicated on 30 November 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 19483/05 Nurettin ALTIN against Turkey lodged on 23 May 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Nurettin Altın , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Altın , a lawyer practising in İstanbul.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 15 July 2001 the applicant retired from his position as a judge.

After his retirement, a criminal investigation was instigated in respect of the applicant on account of abuse of power and misconduct in office.

On 17 April 2003 the Court of Cassation convicted the applicant as charged; however, his sentence was suspended according to Law No. 4616 on the execution of sentences in respect of certain offences committed before 23 April 1999 (dated 21 December 2000).

On 30 September 2003 the Plenary Chamber of the Court of Cassation ( Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu ) upheld the judgment of 17 April 2003.

On 25 December 2003 the applicant was dismissed from his position as a judge by a decision of the Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors (“the Supreme Council”) in accordance with Article 69 (5) of the Law on Judges and Public Prosecutors (Law no. 2802) as he had been sanctioned for disciplinary reasons on account of committing acts which were considered incompatible with the requirements of his functions . The applicant objected to the decision of the Supreme Council and on 6 December 2004 the latter dismissed the applicant ’ s objection. This decision was final as the dismissal decisions of the Supreme Council were not open to judicial review at the relevant time.

The disciplinary sanction of dismissal also resulted in the forfeiture of the applicant ’ s retirement benefits, including his pension.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 159 of the Turkish Constitution, as in force at the relevant time, stipulated that decisions of the Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors were not open to judicial review.

Article 53 (e) of Law No. 2802 provides that the term of office of judges and prosecutors shall terminate upon voluntary, disability or compulsory retirement.

According to Article 69 (5) of Law No. 2802, any judge or public prosecutor who has been sanctioned for disciplinary reasons on account of committing acts which are considered incompatible with the requirements of his/her functions shall be liable to be removed from office, even if the said acts do not entail criminal sanctions.

Article 5 (b) of Attorneys Act (Law no. 1136), provides that any judge, public prosecutor or lawyer who has been removed from office as a disciplinary sanction shall be banned from practising as a lawyer.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges under Article 6 of the Convention that the decisions of the Supreme Council could not be challenged before domestic courts.

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he lost his pension rights as a result of his dismissal, which violated his property rights.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the m eaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

If so, what is the legal basis for that interference and does it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicant?

2. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case, regard being had to the fact that the proceedings in question were initiated after the applicant ’ s retirement from civil service?

3. If so, was the applicant denied access to court contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?