Published on 21 March 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 9640/20 Saide Seza Ä°Z against Turkey lodged on 5 February 2020 communicated on 3 March 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a medical faculty graduate. Her application concerns the refusal of domestic authorities to appoint her to civil service as a doctor in the context of her compulsory medical duty on account of a negative security clearance. The applicant complains in substance under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention of the alleged arbitrariness of the security clearance procedure and the lack of an effective judicial review in so far as the conclusions made in the security clearance contained no objective assessment in respect of herself and were based on the alleged connections of her close relatives with a terrorist organisation and the fact that she had graduated from a high-school that had been allegedly affiliated with FETÖ/PDY (Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation / Parallel State Structure) and shut down pursuant to emergency measures in the aftermath of the attempted coup.

The applicant further argues that the refusal of the authorities to appoint her to civil service resulted her in not being able to fulfil her compulsory medical duty and she was therefore unlawfully prevented from obtaining her license to practice medicine. She points out in this connection that despite the law on security clearance was struck down as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 29 July 2019 for not fulfilling, inter alia , the requirement of foreseeability in abstractive review proceedings, the same court did not examine her individual appeal on the merits.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the negative security clearance, resulting in the applicant’s non-admission into civil service and the ensuing impossibility for her to obtain the license to practice her profession?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 in view of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 29 July 2019 (see, mutatis mutandis , Özpınar v. Turkey , no. 20999/04, §§ 74-78, 19 October 2010, Naidin v. Romania , no. 38162/07, 21 October 2014; and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 115-117, 25 September 2018)?

2. In the light of the principles established in Pişkin v. Turkey (no. 33399/18, §§ 120-153, 15 December 2020), did the domestic courts carry out an effective judicial review of the refusal to appoint the applicant to civil service in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the conclusions contained in the security clearance and the relevant judicial decisions endorsing them be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable?