PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 12305/09) 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, Özgür Keskin, (“the applicant”), on 7 February 2009.

The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 6 December 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in İzmir.

On 18 June 1998 the applicant started working for a company owned by İzmir City Council (“the City Council”). On 19 March 2007 he resigned from his job to perform his military service.

On 12 April 2007 the applicant was paid 16,985 Turkish liras (TRY ‑ approximately 9,200 euros (EUR)) in respect of severance pay and he signed a release (ibraname) discharging the City Council from all liability.

Following his discharge from the military on health grounds shortly after he was enlisted, on 20 April and 31 May 2007 the applicant requested his reinstatement in his previous job. However, his requests were rejected by the City Council.

On 28 June 2007 the applicant initiated proceedings before the İzmir Labour Court, seeking reinstatement. He relied on clause 19 of the collective bargaining agreement in force at the company (“the collective agreement”), which provided for the reinstatement of employees who had quit their jobs to perform their military service, provided that they applied within three months of their discharge from the armed forces.

On 12 September 2007, in a decision rendered orally in the presence of the parties, the İzmir Labour Court found in favour of the applicant. The Labour Court held that the applicant’s discharge from the military shortly after he had been enlisted fell under the provision of the collective agreement, which called for the suspension of the employment contract when an employee was conscripted (silah altına alınma) for reasons other than compulsory military service, such as being recalled to the armed forces in times of war. Therefore it held that the applicant was entitled to be reinstated in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement. The court informed the parties that they could appeal against this decision within the time-limits set out in the applicable procedure.

On 18 September 2007 the City Council appealed against the decision and reserved its right to submit additional observations once the reasoned judgment of the first-instance court had been served on it. That appeal was not communicated to the applicant.

On 15 October 2007, the registry of the first-instance court forwarded the file to the Court of Cassation for appeal on points of law.

On 23 October 2007 the City Council submitted its additional observations. It argued, inter alia, that the first-instance court’s interpretation of the collective agreement had been erroneous. These observations were also not communicated to the applicant.

On 21 July 2008, following an examination based on the case file and without holding a hearing, the Court of Cassation quashed the first‑instance court’s judgment and found in favour of the City Council. The Court of Cassation found it established that the applicant had resigned from his job to perform his military service and that he had been paid severance pay. It held that a rejection of the applicant’s request for reinstatement could not be regarded as the termination of the applicant’s employment contract; therefore, the applicant could not technically ask to be reinstated. The Court of Cassation further held that clause 19 of the collective agreement was not directly applicable in the case before it. No appeal was possible against this decision.

This decision was served on the applicant on 22 September 2008.