4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Adıyaman. 5.  On 17 October 1999 the applicant sat an examination in order to become a public servant. She was successful in the examination and on 27 June 2000 she was notified by the State Personnel Department attached to the Prime Minister’s office that she had been appointed to the post of security officer in the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ, the state-run Electricity Company. 6.  On 4 September 2000 the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ informed the applicant that she would not be appointed to a post in that office as she did not fulfil the requirements of “being a man” and “having completed military service”. 7.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an action against TEDAŞ with the Ankara Administrative Court requesting the annulment of the decision of the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ. In her deposition, the applicant noted that being a man was not a requirement for appointment to the post in question and that she fulfilled all the requirements for that post. 8.  On an unspecified date the general directorate of TEDAŞ submitted to the administrative court that one of the requirements for the post in question had been declared by the State Personnel Department as “having completed military service” and that therefore only men could be appointed to the post. The applicant, being a woman, could therefore not be recruited as a security officer. 9.  On 28 November 2001 the Ankara Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ. The court held that the requirement of “having completed military service” should be considered to apply only to male candidates and that there had been no restriction on women working as security officers in TEDAŞ. 10.  On 30 January 2002 TEDAŞ lodged an appeal against the judgment of 28 November 2001. 11.  On 1 April 2003 the applicant was recruited by TEDAŞ. 12.  On 21 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the Ankara Administrative Court, holding that the requirement regarding military service demonstrated that the post in question was reserved for male candidates. The high court therefore found that the administration’s decision had been in accordance with the law. 13.  On 19 March 2004 the applicant was dismissed from her post. 14.  On 30 December 2004 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case, taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court. 15.  On 7 May 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 30 December 2004. 16.  On 12 July 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment was notified to the applicant.