SECOND SECTION

Application no. 36895/09 Zeynep Dilek HATTATOÄžLU against Turkey lodged on 29 June 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Zeynep Dilek Hattatoğlu , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Ankara. She is represented before the Court by Mr M.R. Tiryaki , Ms N. Ş abbaz and Ms Z. Çolak , lawyers practising in Ankara.

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

The applicant was an assistant professor at the Faculty of Science and Literature of the MuÄŸla University at the time of the events giving rise to the present application.

On 1 March 2006 a TV programme was broadcast from the premises of the Muğla University during which the former President of Turkey, Kenan Evren , who headed the coup d ’ etat of 12 September 1980 in his capacity as Chief of the General Staff , was interviewed.

On 2 March 2006 the applicant put a text on the door of her office which read “I am ashamed of and protest against the fact that my university has received a general who headed a coup d ’ etat with open arms.”

In April 2006 a disciplinary investigation was initiated regarding the applicant.

On 12 May 2006 the Dean of the Faculty of Science and Literature decided to issue the applicant with a warning ( uyarma cezası ) in accordance with Regulations 5(e) and 4(a) of the Disciplinary Regulations on the Managers, Faculty Members and Civil Servants of Higher Education Institutions. The Dean considered that the text in question damaged the university ’ s reputation and had a negative and damaging message v is -à- vis the students. The Dean concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate behaviour compatible with the dignity of a faculty member.

On an unspecified date the applicant objected to the decision of 12 May 2006. On 31 May 2006 the MuÄŸla University Disciplinary Board dismissed her appeal.

On 6 July 2006 the applicant lodged a case with the MuÄŸla Administrative Court and requested the annulment of the disciplinary sanction. In her petition, the applicant submitted that she had exercised her freedom of expression.

On 1 March 2007 the MuÄŸla Administrative Court dismissed her case, holding that it was not in dispute that the applicant had put the text in question on her door. It further held that the applicant had demonstrated negative attitudes and behaviour which had an adverse effect on the workplace.

The applicant appealed and requested the suspension of the execution of the judgment of 1 March 2007.

On 11 June 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request for suspension of the execution of the first-instance court ’ s judgment.

On 12 November 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.

On 24 January 2008 the applicant requested rectification of the decision of 12 November 2007.

On 10 November 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request for rectification.

On 12 January 2009 the decision of 10 November 2008 was notified to the applicant.

On an unspecified date the applicant was dismissed from her post at the MuÄŸla University.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her case was dismissed without any concrete evidence showing that her act had an adverse effect on the workplace . She further complains under the same head that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court had not been communicated to her or her representative.

The applicant maintains under Article 10 of the Convention that the disciplinary sanction imposed on her and her subsequent dismissal from her post was in breach of her right to freedom of expression.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression , in particular her right to impart ideas , contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?

2. Did the non-communication to the applicant of the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court entail a breach of the principle of equality of arms safeguarded under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Meral v. Turkey , no. 33446/02, 27 November 2007 )?