5.  The applicants, who are brothers, were born in 1964 and 1962 respectively and live in Mardin. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  At the time of the events giving rise to the application, the applicants held teaching posts with the Ministry of Education and were employed as primary school teachers. 8.  On 22 January 2000 the first applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, Hizbullah, following the discovery of his profile in the format of a CV (özgeçmiş) amongst documents confiscated from the organisation’s safe house in Beykoz, Istanbul. On 26 January 2000 he was questioned by the police. In his statement, which he refrained from signing, he denied the allegations that he was a member of Hizbullah but submitted that he had given some of the same personal information about himself reflected in the CV to an individual named F.Ş. in 1983. He further submitted that he had adopted a religious lifestyle and had been in contact with religious communities since 1983; however, his activities had never gone beyond reading the Quran to children in mosques. In a statement given on 29 January 2000 to the public prosecutor, the applicant stated that he had refrained from signing his statements before the police since they had contained expressions which had not been used by him. He further submitted that the fact that his profile had been discovered in the safe house meant nothing, since anyone could have given that information to Hizbullah. He stated that, in any event, he had not given information about himself to the organisation. 9.  On 22 January 2000 the second applicant was taken into police custody in similar circumstances to the first applicant, that is, following the discovery of his profile in the format of a CV amongst documents confiscated from the organisation’s safe house in Istanbul. On 28 and 29 January 2000 he was questioned by the police and the Mardin public prosecutor respectively, and denied all allegations against him on both occasions. Claiming that he had never been in contact with Hizbullah, he stressed that the CV shown to him as evidence by the police during questioning differed from the one he had seen at the time of his detention a week earlier, and that they both contained inaccurate information about his background. 10.  On 29 February 2000 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court, accusing the applicants of membership of an illegal armed organisation. He further accused the second applicant of complicity in the murder of two individuals and the wounding of a third. 11.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The cases against the applicants were therefore transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court. 12.  On 13 September 2004 the Diyarbakır Assize Court held that the first applicant’s involvement with the terrorist organisation had been limited to handing in his CV and attending its indoctrination sessions, which therefore fell within the scope of aiding and abetting rather than membership. Having regard to the fact that the alleged crime had been committed before 23 April 1999, the court held that Law no. 4616 – which provided for the suspension of criminal proceedings in respect of certain offences committed before that date (see paragraph 38 below) – was applicable. It thus suspended the criminal proceedings against the first applicant. On 28 September 2007 the proceedings against him were discontinued on account of the expiry of the five-year prosecution period. The decision became final on 31 October 2007. 13.  On 7 December 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court reclassified the charge against the second applicant as aiding and abetting an illegal organisation and discontinued the proceedings in respect of that charge on account of the expiry of the five-year prosecution period. It further acquitted him of the remaining charges for lack of sufficient evidence. 14.  Owing to the fact that they were being prosecuted on charges of membership of an illegal organisation, the applicants were suspended from their positions. Furthermore, on 27 January 2000, following the initiation of the criminal investigation against the applicants, the Mardin Directorate of Education (“the Directorate”) initiated a disciplinary investigation against the applicants and a number of other civil servants into their political and ideological activities. Among those questioned within the context of that investigation were the applicants, about six to nine of their colleagues, as well as the principal and vice-principal of the primary school. In respect of the first applicant, three teachers briefly stated that they had been aware that the applicant was a Hizbullah supporter or had heard such rumours. One teacher colleague stated that he believed the applicant was a Hizbullah supporter as he had seen his wife wearing a çarşaf (chador). In respect of the second applicant, the teachers said that they knew him to be religious but that they had not witnessed him engaging in any ideological propaganda at school. One teacher submitted that the second applicant was rumoured to be a Hizbullah supporter. In respect of both applicants, most of the teachers submitted that their suspension from the school had disrupted the working order of the institution in so far as the applicants’ students had had to be transferred to the rest of the teachers, resulting in merged classes of sixty to seventy pupils. The principal and vice-principal stated that they had not witnessed or been made aware of anything to suggest that the applicants had connections with the illegal organisation. The applicants denied the allegations and stated that they wanted to return to their duties as soon as possible. 15.  In an investigation report dated 30 June 2000, investigators took into account the evidence in the criminal proceedings, in particular the fact that the applicants’ CVs had been discovered on a computer confiscated from the organisation’s safe house, and concluded that the applicants were members of Hizbullah. They also went on to add that this conclusion was corroborated by the statements of the applicants’ teacher colleagues. They then decided that the nature of the criminal proceedings against the applicants on charges of membership of a terrorist organisation fell within the ambit of section 125 (E) (a) of the Law on Civil Servants (Law no. 657), which provides for the dismissal of a civil servant for disrupting the peace, tranquillity and working order of an institution for ideological and political purposes. The investigators therefore recommended the applicants’ dismissal on those grounds. 16.  On 24 October 2000 the applicants were invited by the Supreme Disciplinary Council of the Ministry of Education (“the Supreme Disciplinary Council”) to submit defence statements in response to the allegations concerning their active membership of the illegal terrorist organisation Hizbullah and their alleged disruption of the peace, tranquillity and order at the workplace for ideological and political purposes. 17.  In separate submissions the applicants denied all the allegations against them. They denied having given Hizbullah their CVs and highlighted obvious spelling mistakes, discrepancies and inaccurate information in the copies contained in the case file to demonstrate that they had been prepared by someone else without their knowledge. The first applicant further argued that the disciplinary investigation file contained no objective assessment of whether he had engaged in ideologically or politically motivated behaviour at the workplace so as to disrupt the peace, tranquillity and the working order of the school. In that respect he submitted that the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authorities was not grounded on facts but solely on accusations and rumours. 18.  By a decision of the Supreme Disciplinary Council dated 18 April 2001, the applicants were dismissed from the civil service pursuant to section 125 (E) (a) of Law no. 657. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:
“...The acts attributed to the applicant[s]: Membership of the illegal terrorist organisation Hizbullah and carrying out activities for the organisation, disrupting the peace, tranquillity and working order of the institution for ideological and political purposes.
...
Based on the examination of the information and documents in the case file, the veracity of the acts attributed to the applicant[s] and their continuous nature has been established. Having regard to the importance of the teaching post and the characteristics and seriousness of the offence, it has not been deemed appropriate to impose a lighter penalty. Based on the following considerations, the recommendation for the applicant[s]’ dismissal was accepted unanimously ...”
b.  Proceedings before the Administrative Courts against the dismissal of the first applicant 19.  On 4 August 2001 the first applicant brought a claim against the Ministry of Education in the Diyarbakır Administrative Court, challenging his dismissal. He requested a stay of execution of the dismissal order because criminal proceedings were still pending against him. 20.  On 10 January 2002 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court rejected his request for a stay of the dismissal order. 21.  Relying on his right to be presumed innocent, on 18 February 2002 the first applicant challenged that decision before the Regional Administrative Court. 22.  On 4 March 2002, having regard to the fact that the first applicant had been dismissed on account of his alleged membership of a terrorist organisation, the Regional Administrative Court granted his request for a stay of the dismissal decision and held that he had been charged with a criminal, not a disciplinary, offence, the determination of which could only be made by a competent criminal court. It therefore held that he could not be dismissed from public service for membership of a terrorist organisation without a final conviction. If he were to be convicted, however, he could be dismissed on the grounds that he no longer qualified for civil service. The case was remitted to the Diyarbakır Administrative Court. 23.  On 3 December 2002 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court adjourned its examination of the merits of the case pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. 24.  On 14 April 2005, shortly after the Diyarbakır Assize Court’s decision to suspend the criminal proceedings, the Diyarbakır Administrative Court rejected the first applicant’s request for the dismissal decision to be quashed. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows:
 “The applicant and other civil servants holding various posts in the district have been the subject of a disciplinary investigation in connection with their alleged acts of ‘disrupting the peace, tranquillity and working order of the institution for ideological and political purposes; participating, provoking, encouraging or otherwise assisting in acts such as boycotts, occupations, obstructions, slowdowns and strikes or being collectively absent from work.’ The Ministry of Education’s investigation report dated 30 June 2000 recommended the applicant’s dismissal from public service because [he] was a member of the Hizbullah terrorist organisation.
Despite the fact that the criminal proceedings against the applicant [on charges of membership of a terrorist organisation] have been suspended, it is an established principle of case-law that exoneration from criminal liability does not preclude the finding of a disciplinary offence. Hence, following an examination of the case file and investigation report, the court finds it established that the applicant committed the disciplinary offence in so far as he gave the organisation his profile and attended its lessons and meetings.” 25.  On 21 June 2005 the first applicant appealed against the judgment of the Diyarbakır Administrative Court to the Supreme Administrative Court, requesting a stay of the decision ordering for his dismissal from service. He challenged the grounds on which he had been dismissed, arguing that membership of a terrorist organisation was not one of the disciplinary offences listed in the Law on Civil Servants which warranted dismissal from public service. Moreover, he relied on his right to be presumed innocent since the criminal proceedings against him had been suspended and there had been no definitive finding of guilt. He also argued that the Diyarbakır Administrative Court’s failure to give reasons in its decision implied that it had not established the facts giving rise to the disciplinary action independently. 26.  In a decision dated 27 September 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant’s request for a stay of the dismissal order without providing any further reasons. On 6 June 2006 it also dismissed his appeal. 27.  On an unspecified date the first applicant requested a stay of his dismissal order and rectification of the decision in the Supreme Administrative Court, maintaining the same grounds of appeal as in his previous appeal (see paragraph 25 above). 28.  The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant’s requests on 13 February 2008 and 14 April 2009 respectively, without responding to his arguments.
c.  Proceedings before the Administrative Courts against the dismissal of the second applicant 29.  On an unspecified date the second applicant brought a case before the Diyarbakır Administrative Court, challenging his dismissal and requesting a stay of execution of the dismissal order. On 10 January 2002 the Administrative Court dismissed the request for a stay of execution. 30.  The second applicant appealed against that decision to the Diyarbakır Regional Administrative Court. He complained, inter alia, that the criminal proceedings on charges of membership of an illegal organisation were still pending before the Diyarbakır State Security Court and that, therefore, his dismissal without a conviction on the basis of abstract accusations infringed the presumption of innocence; that the allegations that he had disturbed the peace and order at the workplace remained completely unproven and unsubstantiated; and that in delivering its decision, the Supreme Disciplinary Council had failed to comply with the six-month time‑limit set out in Law no. 657. 31.  On 4 March 2002 the Diyarbakır Regional Administrative Court ordered a stay of execution of the dismissal decision. It reiterated at the outset the three principal conditions for an act to be considered a disciplinary offence: (i) that it be carried out by the employees of an institution within that institution; (ii) that it disrupt the established order of the institution; and (iii) that the act constituting the disciplinary offence, as well as the related penalty, be set out in the relevant laws and regulations. The Regional Administrative Court then went on to examine the different types of offences that may be committed by civil servants, differentiating between acts amounting to disciplinary offences exclusively, acts considered to be offences under both disciplinary and criminal laws and, lastly, acts defined as offences only under the Criminal Code. In the light of this classification, the Diyarbakır Regional Administrative Court decided that the act attributed to the second applicant, that is, membership of a terrorist organisation, fell under the third category of acts punishable only under the Criminal Code, the determination of which could only be made by a competent criminal court. Bearing in mind that the relevant criminal proceedings were still pending before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, the Regional Administrative Court concluded that the second applicant could not, for the time being, be lawfully dismissed from the civil service on account of membership of a terrorist organisation. The case was remitted to the Diyarbakır Administrative Court. 32.  On 8 September 2006 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court annulled the Supreme Disciplinary Council’s dismissal decision as unlawful. Noting the discrepancy in the latter’s decision, the court stated that while the second applicant was being accused by the administration of membership of a terrorist organisation, the legal basis put forward for his dismissal was the disruption of peace and order at the workplace through ideological and political propaganda under section 125 (E) (a) of Law no. 657. Considering that none of the people questioned at the school had witnessed such propaganda by the second applicant there, and bearing further in mind that “membership of a terrorist organisation” was not one of the exhaustive grounds for dismissal from the civil service listed in the relevant section, the second applicant’s dismissal had had no legal basis. 33.  The Ministry of Education appealed against the decision. On 20 June 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the decision of the Diyarbakır Administrative Court and amended the legal grounds for the second applicant’s dismissal. The Supreme Administrative Court firstly acknowledged that the charges against the second applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation had been discontinued on account of the expiry of the five-year prescription period laid down for that offence, and that he had been acquitted of the remaining charges. Referring to the second applicant’s statements given to the police, his CV obtained from the Hizbullah safe house in Istanbul and the bill of indictment filed against him by the Mardin public prosecutor, the Supreme Administrative Court then found it established that the second applicant was a member of a terrorist organisation who in addition had recruited members to the organisation and pursued the ideology of the terrorist organisation in the classroom. It continued that even if his colleagues had not witnessed such action on the part of the second applicant at the school, his dismissal had still been justified under a different subsection of section 125 (E), namely subsection (g), which authorised the dismissal of civil servants who were found to engage in “disgraceful and shameful conduct incompatible with the position of a civil servant”. 34.  On 27 May 2009 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court transferred the case to the Mardin Administrative Court, which was deemed to be the court with jurisdiction in the instant case. 35.  On 24 November 2009, complying with the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, the Mardin Administrative Court upheld the disciplinary decision ordering the second applicant’s dismissal from the civil service under section 125 (E) (g) of Law no. 657. The relevant parts of the judgment read:
“Notwithstanding the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of membership of an armed organisation and his acquittal on charges of murder and battery, the investigation and [criminal] case file reveal that the applicant’s profile was discovered in the organisation’s [safe] house in Istanbul and that his statements to the police and the bill of indictment demonstrate the fact that he was a member of the organisation, recruiting new members and lecturing on its ideologies, facts which were corroborated by his statements and [CV]. These acts fall within the scope of disgraceful and shameful conduct incompatible with the position of a civil servant ... which therefore justify his dismissal from public service.” 36.  On 17 September 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request for leave to appeal lodged by the second applicant.