PROCEDURE

The case originated in three applications (nos. 44058/04, 19807/05 and 26384/05) 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 three Turkish nationals, Mr Özcan Korkmaz, Mr Serkan Yazar and Mr Murat İslam (“the applicants”), on 1 November 2004, 23 May 2005 and 27 June 2005 respectively. The applicants were represented, respectively, by Ms T. Çelikyürek, Mr C. Calış and Mr A. L. Koçer, lawyers practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 23 September 2008 the Court declared the applications partly inadmissible and decided to communicate to the Government the complaints concerning the applicants' lack of access to the classified documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court (applications nos. 19807/05 and 26384/05) and the non-communication to the applicants of the principal public prosecutor's written opinion (all applications), as well as the submissions of the reporting judge, during the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court (application no. 44058/04). It also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES

The applicants were all former members of the Turkish Armed Forces, who had been discharged for disciplinary reasons.

The applicants brought separate proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, requesting the annulment of their discharge.

The Supreme Military Administrative Court held, after hearing the parties (except in application no. 44058/04 where no hearing was held) and examining the confidential documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence by virtue of Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602, that the applicants' discharges had been in conformity with the applicable laws. Consequently, it rejected their annulment requests. Neither the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court prior to the hearings, nor the comments of the reporting judge which were entertained during the deliberations, were communicated to the applicants.

The applicants subsequently requested the rectification of the Supreme Military Administrative Court's decisions. Their requests were rejected on the following days:

application no. 44058/04: 20 April 2004 (decision served on the applicant on 3 May 2004)

application no. 19807/05: 26 April 2005

application no. 26384/05: 2 February 2005