Published on 2 October 2023

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 59262/15 Salih BENLİ against Türkiye and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 13 September 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants (see appendix) were chief inspectors of the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors and inspectors of the Inspection Board of the Ministry of Justice at the time of the events giving rise to the present applications. The applications concern the applicants’ alleged inability to have recourse to judicial review of the decisions of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (became “the Council of Judges and Prosecutors” (HSK) since the constitutional revision of 2017) to reassign them as judges and prosecutors to different judicial districts.

The applicants complain in substance or invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the HSK concerning the latter’s decision to remove the applicants from their positions as inspectors and to reassign them as judges and prosecutors were not compatible with the requirements of independence and impartiality and other guarantees of Article 6 and that they did not have access to a court to challenge the HSK’s impugned decision. They complain that the HSK is not lawfully composed in a manner that ensured its independence and impartiality. They argue that the judges on the bench of the HSK who decided on the reassignment decision were the same judges who examined their objections to that reassignment decision and that the composition and the proceedings were not compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Certain applicants (applications nos. 63089/15, 10871/19 and 11395/16) further complain under the same article that the reassignment decision caused a reduction in their salaries on account of the loss of entitlement to the compensation paid to inspectors and the daily indemnity for assignments in different cities.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

In the light of the principles established in Bilgen v. Turkey (no. 1571/07, §§ 65-81 and §§ 92-97, 9 March 2021) and Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey (no. 76521/12, §§ 36, 76 and §§ 99-102, 9 March 2021) did the proceedings before the HSK comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants have access to a court satisfying all the requirements of that provision, including the right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

1.

59262/15

Benli v. Türkiye

Salih BENLÄ° 10/10/1976 Ankara Turkish

2.

62546/15

Gül v. Türkiye

Cevat GÃœL 01/09/1970 Ankara Turkish

3.

63089/15

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

Mustafa YILMAZ 09/10/1969 Samsun Turkish

4.

670/16

Köse v. Türkiye

Eşref KÖSE 05/03/1974 Samsun Turkish

5.

9335/16

Cengiz v. Türkiye

Bilal CENGÄ°Z 24/05/1981 Adana Turkish

6.

10871/16

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

Abdulvahap YILMAZ 02/06/1972 Kütahya Turkish

7.

11395/16

Hendek v. Türkiye

Hasan HENDEK 15/01/1972 Istanbul Turkish