9.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1950 respectively and live in Ankara. 10.  Their son, an army pilot, died on 16 May 2001, when his plane crashed near the village of Malatya (Akçadağ / Güzyurdu) while transporting troops from Diyarbakır to Ankara. Thirty-three other servicemen died in the same accident, five of them also members of the plane’s crew. 11.  On 10 May 2002 the applicants applied, through their lawyer, to the Turkish Pension Fund Authority to award them the pension payable under section 21 of Law no. 3713, the Anti-Terrorism Act (hereinafter “Law no. 3713”). 12.  In a letter dated 23 May 2002 the Pension Fund Authority noted that the applicants had been awarded, inter alia, a monthly war disability pension under section 64 of Law no. 5434, as well as a lump sum equal to thirty times the highest salary of a public servant. It further noted that their son’s death had not been caused by an act of terrorism within the meaning of Law no. 3713 but by the fact that, for an unknown reason, his plane had crashed. It was therefore not possible to increase their monthly invalidity pension to the level of the monthly salary paid to an equivalent serving member of the military. 13.  On 15 July 2002 the applicants appealed, through their lawyer, to the Ankara Administrative Court against that decision. They submitted, in particular, that their son had died while transporting troops engaged in the fight against terrorism from northern Iraq, so his death should be considered to have occurred in the context of the fight against the terrorism. 14.  On 1 April 2003 the 4th Chamber of the Ankara Administrative Court rejected their appeal as being outside its jurisdiction, considering that it was rather a matter for the Supreme Military Administrative Court. Referring to a judgment of the Jurisdiction Disputes Court of 14 May 2001 (E.2000/77, K.2001/22), it held:
“... to determine whether the administrative act is “linked to military service” and decide which court has jurisdiction, the object of the act must be examined. If the act was done in keeping with military requirements, procedure and practice, it must be considered to be linked to military service ... Whether or not a non-military authority was at the origin of the act is of no consequence – the Supreme Military Administrative Court is the Court responsible for examining a case [brought by] a member of the armed forces. In the present case the issue is an application for a monthly pension made by the claimants under Law no. 3713 ... To determine whether the claim falls within the scope of that Law, regard must be had to ... the purpose of the military service and the specificity of the locations where it is effected, as well as military aptitude, to show that the impugned act was done in keeping with military needs, procedure and practice.
Where this is the case ... it is for the Supreme Military Administrative Court to examine and resolve the dispute.
This was, moreover, the line of reasoning of the Jurisdiction Disputes Court’s decision no. E: 2000/77, K: 2001/22, published in the Official Gazette ... of 18.06.2001.” 15.  On 3 June 2003 the applicants brought their case before the Supreme Military Administrative Court. In their statement of claim they included a decision adopted by the 10th Chamber of the Ankara Administrative Court on 22 January 2003 (E.2002/1059, K.2003/27) in what they considered a similar case (see paragraph 26 below). 16.  On 10 June 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected their claim. First of all, it observed that the applicants had been awarded a monthly war disability pension as well as a lump sum equal to thirty times the highest salary of a public servant, calculated in accordance with additional section 78 to Law no. 5434 and readjusted in accordance with Law no. 4567. It then noted that their request to have their monthly pension increased to the level of that paid to an equivalent serving member of the military had been rejected by the competent authorities. It pointed out that entitlement under section 21 of Law no. 3713 was restricted to cases where an agent of the State had been directly wounded, disabled or killed as a result of acts of terrorism. It considered that the mere fact that the victim had been employed in work connected with the fight against terrorism did not suffice. As the deceased had not been killed by an act of terrorism, the impugned administrative act was not unlawful. 17.  One of the judges expressed a dissenting opinion in which he criticised such a restrictive interpretation of Law no. 3713. Pointing out that it was not disputed that the applicants’ son had died in a plane crash while co-piloting a plane carrying troops returning from an anti-terrorism operation, he considered that the crux of the matter was whether the death fell within the scope of section 21 of Law no. 3713. In his opinion, in view of the purpose of the deceased’s mission that provision was certainly applicable to the circumstances of the case. 18.  On 6 July 2004 the applicants lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Military Administrative Court. In his pleadings their lawyer explained that in his submissions of 10 June 2004 and at the hearing before the Supreme Military Administrative Court the same day he had produced four decisions adopted by the ordinary administrative courts, namely the 6th, 10th and 11th Chambers of the Ankara Administrative Court, concerning applications similar to the applicants’, lodged by four families of servicemen who had died in the same accident as their son; in those decisions the Courts had found in favour of the claimants. He complained that the Supreme Military Administrative Court had made no reference to those cases, and argued that the solution adopted was contrary to the constitutional principles of equality before the law and consistency of the law. 19.  In a judgment of 30 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ appeal as being ill-founded and found the impugned judgment to be in conformity with the law and the requisite procedure. That judgment was served on the applicants’ lawyer. The postmark on the envelope was dated 11 October 2004.