4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Izmir. 5.  The facts of the case, as presented by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  Until 1987 the applicant worked as a primary school teacher in Izmir. 7.  On 30 March 1983 he was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. 8.  From 30 March 1983 to 30 September 1987, he was suspended from his post on account of the criminal proceedings against him. 9.  In 1984 the Diyarbakır Martial Court convicted the applicant under Article 141 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. 10.  By a decision of 30 September 1987, the Ministry of National Education dismissed the applicant from his employment. It reasoned that the applicant was no longer eligible for the civil service since he failed to fulfil the requirements of the post as prescribed by Article 48 § A-5 of Law no. 657. 11.  On 12 April 1991 Article 141 of the Criminal Code was repealed by Law no. 3713 (the Anti-Terror Law). 12.  On 4 December 1991 the Izmir Assize Court ordered the removal of the applicant's conviction under Article 141 of the Criminal Code. 13.  On 15 September 1992 the applicant filed a petition with the administrative authorities and requested his reinstatement to his previous post. 14.  On 31 December 1993 the applicant was reinstated to the post of primary school teacher at a primary school in Konak. 15.  On 8 February 1994 the applicant filed a petition with the principal of the primary school. He requested to be given the rights and earnings which he was denied during his suspension and dismissal periods. 16.  The principal of the primary school transmitted the applicant's petition to the Konak District National Education Directorate. 17.  By a decision dated 11 April 1994, the Ministry of National Education dismissed the applicant's request. 18.  On 9 May 1994 the Konak District National Education Directorate informed the applicant about the Ministry's decision. 19.  On 30 May 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Izmir Administrative Court, seeking compensation for the damage he had suffered as a result of his allegedly unlawful suspension and dismissal. He further requested to be granted the rights and salaries of which he had been deprived during those periods. 20.  On 20 December 1996 the Izmir Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's claim. It reasoned that the decision of the administrative authorities concerning his reinstatement to his previous post would not enable him to claim the rights and earnings which were denied him during the suspension and dismissal periods. 21.  On 6 April 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request for appeal. It opined that the reinstatement of the applicant did not give him the right to recuperate rights and earnings for the suspension and dismissal period. 22.  On 31 August 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court's decision was served on the applicant.