CASE OF ERDEM v. TURKEY
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial)
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić
4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in İzmir. 5. In March 2002, the applicant, who was a working as a civil servant, was dismissed due gross misconduct. He applied to the administrative courts to have the annulment of that decision. In the course of the proceedings, on 4 July 2006 Law no. 5525, granting amnesty to civil servants who had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings, entered into force. Accordingly, in the light of this new amnesty law, on 10 April 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court decided that there was no need to examine the merits of the case. 6. In the meantime, on 30 September 2005 the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant had ended with the decision of the criminal court, convicting him of abuse of office. 7. Following the entry into force of the amnesty law, the applicant applied to the administration and asked to be reinstated. His request was refused on 19 December 2006. The applicant initiated proceedings to have the annulment of that decision. 8. By a decision dated 8 January 2008, the Ankara Administrative Court found in line with the applicant’s claims and decided to annul the decision of the authorities by which they had refused to reinstate the applicant. 9. Following appeal, the case was transferred before the Supreme Administrative Court. In the course of the proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court filed his written opinion. This opinion included substantial grounds on the merits of the case with a proposal to quash the decision of the first instance court. On 25 May 2009, relying also on the opinion of the Chief Public Prosecutor, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of 8 January 2008. In particular, the appeal court referred to its previous leading case which had been delivered on 17 October 2008 on a similar case and held that the amnesty law did not put an obligation on the administration to reinstate the applicant. 10. The case was accordingly remitted before the Ankara Administrative Court. On 9 October 2009 the first instance court adhered to the judgment of the appeal court and dismissed the applicant’s case. This decision was served on the applicant on 13 November 2009.