I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION : NON-COMMUNICATION OF THE WRITTEN OPINION OF THE PRINCIPAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

7 . The applicant complained that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the proceedings had not been communicated to him , in breach of the equality of arms principle safeguarded under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention .

8 . The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

9 . As for the merits, t he Government contended that, unlike in criminal proceedings, the principal public prosecutor in administrative proceedings was not a party to the case and his or her opinion had no influence on the decision of the administrative court. The Government also argued that the principle of equality of arms had not been infringed in the instant case as the applicant had had the option of examining the case file and the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor prior to the hearing, as well as the further opportunity of replying to this opinion during the hearing .

10 . The Court observes that it has already examined and dismissed similar submissions by the Government in previous cases and found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, amongst others, Miran v. Turkey , no. 43980/04, §§ 15-18, 21 April 2009; Yavuz Selim Karayi ğit v. Turkey , no. 45874/05, §§ 11-15, 27 October 2009). It considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument in the instant case which would require it to depart from its previous findings.

11 . There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the non-communication of the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor to the applicant.

II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

12 . The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had not had access to the documents, confidential or other, submitted by the Ministry to the Suprem e Military Administrative Court ; that this court had lacked independence and impartiality on account of its composition; that there had been no possibility of appeal against the decisions of the Suprem e Military Administrative Court ; that it had not been possible to know in advance which chamber of this court would examine the case; and that the Suprem e Military Administrative Court ’ s decisions had been erroneous and not sufficiently reasoned. The applicant also alleged violations of Articles 8 § 2, 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention on the basis of the above-mentioned facts, without further substantiation .

13 . In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court does not find that these complaints disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols ( as regards the complaint concerning the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Military Administrative Court, see Yavuz and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29870/96, 25 May 2000; as for the complaints concerning appeal procedures, chamber assignments and access to classified documents, see Karayiğit (dec.), cited above ; as regards the complaint concerning the erroneous and insufficient reasoning in the domestic court ’ s decision, see García Ruiz v. Spain ([GC], no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I); Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands , 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288; Skorik v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 32671/02, 8 January 2008 ).

14 . It follows that this part of the application should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

Damage and costs and expenses

15 . The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage. He also claimed EUR 5,000 for the cost s and expenses incurred before the Court , without submitting any supporting documents.

16 . The Government contested the applicant ’ s claims as being unsubstantiated and fictitious .

17 . The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. As to t he alleged non-pecuniary damage , the Court considers that it is sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 in paragraph 1 1 above (see Meral v. Turkey , no. 33446/02, § 58, 27 November 2007 , and Dikel v. Turkey , no. 8543/05, § 18, 29 September 2009).

18 . As for costs and expenses, the Court makes no award under this head as the applicant ha s failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of his claims.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-communication of the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor to the applicant during the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible ;

2 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3 . Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage ;

4 . Dismisses the remainder of the applicant ’ s claim for just satisfaction .

Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2010 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Stanley Naismith Françoise Tulken s Registrar President