PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 44292/04) 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 Erol Cihangül (“the applicant”), on 25 October 2004. The applicant was represented by Mr O. Çelen, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 29 November 2007 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was 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 1980 and lives in Istanbul. On 5 March 2003 he was expelled from a military academy as he was found unsuitable to be a student there following a secret security investigation conducted on him and his family. The applicant was not notified of the specific reasons for his expulsion.

Subsequently, the applicant asked the Supreme Military Administrative Court to annul the expulsion decision. During the proceedings, he did not have access to the classified documents and information submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court in support of its decision to expel him from the military academy.

On 25 February 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request. It stated that information and documents the confidentiality of which was required and necessitated for the performance of military service could not be disclosed to the applicant. The court further emphasised that it was not bound by the classification made by the administration and that it made its own assessment as to whether the confidentiality of the documents was justified in each case. The written opinion submitted by the public prosecutor to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the proceedings was not communicated to the applicant.

The applicant subsequently requested the rectification of the Supreme Military Administrative Court’s decision, arguing that his inability to access the results of the security investigation due to their allegedly confidential nature precluded him from duly defending himself.

On 20 May 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s rectification request.

II. RELEVANT LAW

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the decision of Karayiğit v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 45874/05, 23 September 2008).