PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 29921/96) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Cengiz Büker (“the applicant”), on 2 October 1995.

The applicant was granted leave by the President to represent himself in the proceedings before the Court (Rule 36 § 3 of the Rules of Court). The President refused the applicant’s request for anonymity (Rule 47 § 3). The respondent Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings.

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of time taken by his university employer to reinstate him following a decision in his favour by a domestic court.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

By a decision of 21 March 2000 the Chamber declared the application admissible.

After consulting the parties, the Chamber decided that it was not necessary to hold a hearing. Neither the applicant nor the Government submitted observations on the merits in the post-admissibility procedure.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant worked on the basis of a two-year contract, beginning on 9 December 1985, as an assistant Professor in the Faculty of Medicine of the Kayseri Erciyas University. Under Turkish law he had the status of a civil servant.

In an administrative decision dated 21 December 1987 the Office of the University President concluded that the applicant’s contract would not be renewed on the grounds of his professional incompetence. The applicant maintained that he was not informed of this decision until he went to the bank to draw out his monthly salary.

On 4 March 1988 the applicant challenged the decision before the Kayseri Administrative Court. In a judgment dated 6 December 1989 (Judgment no. 1) the court ruled in the applicant’s favour finding that the administration failed to substantiate its view that he was not competent for the post. The court annulled the administrative decision. On 29 January 1990 the court’s judgment was served on the Office of the University President, which failed to comply with it within the 60-day period prescribed by domestic law.

The Office of the University President appealed and the file was sent to the Supreme Administrative Court on 22 May 1990. On 13 June 1990 the 5th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the Kayseri Administrative Court. This judgment was served on the Office of the University President on 30 July 1990. The case was subsequently remitted to the Kayseri Administrative Court.

In a judgment dated 5 July 1991 (Judgment no. 2) the Kayseri Administrative Court adhered to (uyma) the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court and held that the decision of the Office of the University President not to renew the applicant’s contract was lawful.

On 21 August 1991 the applicant appealed to the 5th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court. The file was referred to the court on 4 October 1991. On 18 March 1992 the 5th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Kayseri Administrative Court of 5 July 1991.

On 13 October 1992 the applicant subsequently petitioned the 5th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court requesting rectification (karar düzeltme) of its latest judgment. On 21 June 1993 the 5th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court rectified its judgment by quashing the judgment of the Kayseri Administrative Court of 5 July 1991. The case was remitted to the Kayseri Administrative Court.

In a judgment dated 2 December 1993 (Judgment no. 3) the Kayseri Administrative Court adhered to (uyma) the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 June 1993 and again annulled the 1987 decision of the Office of the University President. On 19 February 1994 this judgment was served on the Office of the University President. The Office of the University President again did not comply with this new judgment within the 60-day period prescribed by domestic law.

On 23 February 1994 the Office of the University President appealed against the judgment (Judgment no. 3) of the Kayseri Administrative Court. On 27 June 1994 the 8th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment. The judgment restated that the administration had failed to substantiate its view that the applicant was not competent for the post.

The Office of the University President requested the 8th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court to rectify its judgment (karar düzeltme). On 23 March 1995 the 8th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court rejected this request.

On 28 March 1995 the applicant sent a notarised letter to the Office of the University President demanding that he be reinstated in his former post and be awarded the salary and other monetary rights owing to him.

On 7 December 1995 the applicant received a letter from the Office of the University President dated 4 December 1995 notifying him that he had been re-appointed to his former post as of 23 November 1995. On 15 December 1995 the applicant took up his functions.

On 27 December 1995 the applicant resigned. He requested the Office of the University President to process his voluntary retirement.

In three separate actions, the applicant sued the Office of the University President before the Kayseri Administrative Court, requesting that he be paid the monthly salaries and related monetary rights for the periods during which he was entitled to assume his duties in accordance with the judgments of the domestic courts upholding his claim to reinstatement.

In three judgments dated 25 January 1994, 25 January 1995 and 16 January 1996, the Kayseri Administrative Court held, inter alia, that since the Office of the University President had unlawfully failed to comply with its two judgments in favour of the applicant within the 60-day period prescribed by domestic law, it was liable in damages to the applicant having regard to the court’s finding that the decision to terminate his contract was unlawful. It ruled that the applicant was to be paid his monthly salary and related monetary rights for the given period. The applicant was eventually paid.