4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul. 5.  In 1988 the applicant was recruited by Türkiye Emlak Bankası A.Ş., a state-owned bank (hereinafter “the Bank”). In 1991 he was appointed to the post of deputy director in charge of credit cards. 6.  On an unspecified date, an investigation was carried out as a result of fraudulent acts in the Topkapı branch of the Bank. 7.  On 27 January 1994 the Bank brought an action in the 9th Chamber of Istanbul Court of Commerce claiming compensation from the applicant and seven other employees for having caused losses as a result of irregular transactions. 8.  In June 1995 the Bank filed another action in the 4th Chamber of the Istanbul Court of Commerce claiming more compensation. 9.  On an unspecified date, the two actions were joined at the 9th Chamber of Istanbul Court of Commerce. 10.  On 18 November 1999 the 9th Chamber of Istanbul Court of Commerce decided that it had no jurisdiction ratione materiae and that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the labour courts since it concerned a dispute between the employer and employees. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 10 May 2000. 11.  On 23 October 2001 the Istanbul Labour Court dismissed the action in respect of the applicant and six other employees considering that no fault could be attributed to them. The court however found that the director of the Topkapı branch of the Bank was responsible for the losses in question. It therefore ordered him to pay a certain amount of compensation to the Bank. 12.  Meanwhile, criminal proceedings were brought against the director of the Topkapı branch of the Bank and three other persons for having committed a fraud. The applicant and the Bank intervened in these proceedings as a third party. On 9 July 1999 the Bakırköy Assize Court in Istanbul convicted the director and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment for having abused his duty. It however acquitted the other accused. The applicant appealed against this judgment arguing that the punishment imposed on the director was lenient. 13.  On 29 May 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the above judgment. 14.  On 31 December 2004 the Bakırköy Assize Court terminated the criminal proceedings against the director since they were time-barred.