ONAT v. TURKEY and 14 other applications (European Court of Human Rights)

Last Updated on August 23, 2021 by LawEuro

Published on 23 August 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 61590/19
Daham ONAT against Turkey
and 14 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 3 August 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the termination of the applicants’ employment contracts on account of their alleged links with a terrorist organisation on the basis of the simplified dismissal procedure as set out in the emergency legislative decree no. 667. During the judicial review process, the labour courts relied on the applicants’ (i) previous convictions (in applications nos. 23459/20, 23503/20, 24081/20, 25177/20, 26340/20, 29988/20); or (ii) previous investigations which did not lead to prosecution or a final conviction (in applications nos. 61590/19, 23504/20, 23505/20, 25016/20, 26550/20, 27873/20, 29728/20); (iii) and in some cases, acquittals (applications nos. 23786/20 and 23968/20) as relevant grounds for the termination of an employment contract under decree no. 667.

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review before the domestic courts.

The applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 26550/20, further complain under Article 8 of the Convention about the alleged stigmatisation brought upon them by their dismissal and the irreversible harm their reputation and private lives suffered.

The applicants except for those in applications nos. 23459/20, 23503/20, 24081/20, 25177/20, 26340/20 and 29988/20 further complain under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention of a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence on account of the absence of a conviction in respect of the criminal proceedings relied upon by the labour courts which took place prior to the failed coup of 15 July 2016.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In the light of the principles established in Pişkin v. Turkey (no. 33399/18, §§ 120-153, 15 December 2020), did the domestic courts carry out an effective judicial review of the applicants’ dismissals in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In respect of applications nos. 23459/20, 23503/20, 24081/20, 25177/20, 26340/20, 29988/20, where the labour courts found those applicants’ previous convictions to be relevant, did they give sufficient and pertinent reasons as to how that aspect – known and not objected by the employer at the time of entry into employment – could be accepted as grounds for dismissal in the absence of other factual elements?

2. In respect of applications nos. 23786/20 and 23968/20, having regard to the absence of other factual elements relevant at the time of the termination of the contract, did the domestic courts breach the applicants’ established innocence vis-à-vis the previous criminal proceedings relied on by the labour courts in respect of which the applicants had been acquitted (see, inter alia, Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, §§ 124‑126 ECHR 2013)?

3. In respect of applications nos. 61590/19, 23504/20, 23505/20, 25016/20, 26550/20, 27873/20, 29728/20, having regard to the absence of other factual elements relevant at the time of the termination of the contract, did the domestic courts breach the applicants’ right to presumption of innocence given the fact that the previous investigations which predated the failed coup of 15 July 2016 had ended with a result other than a conviction (see Allen, cited above, § 94) ?

4. Finally, has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all applicants except for the applicant in application no. 26550/20 (see Pişkin, cited above, §§ 216-229)?

APPENDIX

</tabl