SECOND SECTION

Application no. 12305/09 Özgür KESKİN against Turkey lodged on 7 February 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Özgür Keskin , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and lives in İzmir . He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Çetinkaya , a lawyer practising in İzmir .

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

In 1998 the applicant started working for a company owned by Ä°zmir Municipal Council. On 19 March 2007 he resigned from his job to perform compulsory military service.

On 12 April 2007 the applicant was paid 16,985 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 9,200 euros ) in respect of severance pay and he signed a release ( ibraname ) discharging his employer from any liability.

Following his dismissal from military service due to health problems, on 20 April 2007 he requested his reinstatement. However, his request was rejected.

On 28 June 2007 the applicant initiated proceedings in the Ä°zmir Labour Court, seeking reinstatement.

On 12 September 2007 the İzmir Labour Court found in favour of the applicant, holding that pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement in force at the company (“the Collective Labour Contract”) he was entitled to reinstatement.

On an unspecified date, the defendant company appealed against the decision. The applicant was not notified that the defendant company had filed an appeal.

On 21 July 2008, following an examination of the merits of the case, the Court of Cassation quashed the Labour Court ’ s judgment and dismissed the applicant ’ s request. In particular, the Court of Cassation found it established that the applicant had resigned from his job to perform military service and that he had been paid severance pay. It held that a rejection of the applicant ’ s request for reinstatement could not be regarded as the termination of the applicant ’ s employment contract. The Court of Cassation further held that the Collective Labour Contract was not applicable in the case before it. No appeal was possible against this decision.

This decision was served on the applicant on 22 September 2008.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 11 of the Convention that the national courts erred in the interpretation of domestic law and evaluation of the facts. In his opinion, the domestic courts disregarded the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement. The applicant further alleges under the same heading that he was not notified that the defendant company had filed an appeal, thereby depriving him of his right to adversarial proceedings, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention.

The applicant maintains under Article 13 of the Convention that there were no effective remedies in domestic law in respect of his complaints.

QUESTION

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the non-communication of the defendant party ’ s appeal petition to the applicant compatible with his right to adversarial proceedings, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?