Published on 22 November 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 24492/21 Oktay ALKAN against Turkey lodged on 5 May 2021 communicated on 5 November 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the refusal of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (“HSK”) to appoint the applicant to judicial office without disclosing any reasons. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had no access to a court to challenge the HSK’s decision of 13 May 2020. He further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that despite fulfilling the legal and medical qualifications and having successfully passed the written examination before and after his one-year apprenticeship as a candidate judge, he was not confirmed into judicial office after the recruitment interview of 13 July 2018. The applicant alleges, without submitting any documents in respect of the complaint, that during that interview he was asked a number of personal questions regarding himself, his wife and other family members, including his religious beliefs, student clubs he frequented when he attended a military high school, a dispute he had with a fellow classmate and an attempted suicide event dating back ten years which, the applicant claims should have been treated as confidential medical data and not available to the interview board.

The applicant further invokes Article 13 of the Convention arguing that he had no effective remedy in respect of his Article 8 complaint.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable in the present case (see Juričić v. Croatia , no. 58222/09, §§ 51-57, 26 July 2011; Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 12628/09, 9 October 2012; and Bilgen v. Turkey , no. 1571/07, §§ 47-52 and § 58, 9 March 2021)?

If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in view of the constitutional prohibition on judicial review of the HSK’s decisions in these types of disputes?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the impugned interview and the objection process, including the alleged obtention and use of applicant’s mental health data by the interview board, resulting in the applicant’s non-admission into judicial office?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Özpınar v. Turkey , no. 20999/04, §§ 74-78, 19 October 2010 and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 115-117, 25 September 2018)?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Özpınar , cited above, §§ 85-86 and Kayasu v. Turkey , nos. 64119/00 and 76292/01, § 121, 13 November 2008)?

1. What is the purpose of the pre- and post- apprenticeship interviews?

2. How are the candidates evaluated? Are there any safeguards against arbitrary treatment of candidates in the interview process? Are the minutes of the interview available to candidates after?

3. What information or documents are available to the interview board’s scrutiny? Are they disclosed, or otherwise available, to the candidates before or in the aftermath of the interview?

4. How was the applicant’s personal data concerning his medical past, specifically, his attempted suicide obtained?

The Government are requested to submit information about the applicant’s interview process, in particular the minutes prepared by the interview board and any other relevant information considered by the HSK .