PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 2843/05) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Tevfik Okur (“the applicant”), on 3 December 2004. The applicant was represented by Mr C. Çalış, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 23 September 2008 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaints concerning the applicant’s lack of access to classified documents submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court and the non-communication to the applicant of the principal public prosecutor’s written opinion to the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant, was born in 1970 and lives in Nevşehir, was a civil servant working for the Turkish Armed Forces at the time of the events giving rise to this application.

On 10 September 2003 the Supreme Disciplinary Council of the Ministry of Defence decided to dismiss the applicant from service for misconduct in office following his criminal conviction by a martial law court.

The applicant subsequently requested the annulment of the dismissal decision from the Supreme Military Administrative Court.

In its reply to the submissions of the applicant, the Ministry of Defence stated that the applicant had been dismissed in accordance with the relevant provisions of Law no. 657 on Civil Servants and the regulation on disciplinary councils and superiors concerning civil servants employed in the Turkish Armed Forces (Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinde Görevli Devlet Memurları Disiplin Kurulları ve Disiplin Amirleri Yönetmeliği). The Ministry of Defence also submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.

On 24 June 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request. The written opinion submitted by the principal public prosecutor to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the proceedings was not communicated to the applicant.

On 16 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s rectification request.