SECOND SECTION
CASE OF PİŞKİN v. TURKEY
(Application no. 33399/18)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Art 8 • Private life • Inadequate judicial review of the dismissal of an employee in a public institute, under an emergency legislative decree, for his alleged ties to a terrorist organisation regarded as the instigator of the attempted coup of 15 July 2016 • Dismissal authorised under a non-adversarial simplified procedure, without procedural safeguards or individualised summary of the reasoning • Stigmatisation and serious impact on the applicant’s professional and social reputation • Absence of a thorough and serious investigation by the domestic courts 
Art 15 • Failure to comply with the requirements of a fair hearing, unjustified by the derogation in time of emergency • Simplified dismissal procedure that could be justified in the light of the very special circumstances of the emergency • Emergency legislative decree that did not clearly and explicitly rule out judicial review of the measures taken for its implementation

 
STRASBOURG
15 December 2020
 
FINAL
 
19/04/2021
 
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. Contents
INTRODUCTION
THE FACTS
I. THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Background to the case
B. The failed military coup of 15 July 2016
C. Termination of the applicant’s employment contract
D. The applicant’s efforts to resume his duties
E. The applicant’s individual appeal
F. Criminal investigation
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
A. The Turkish Constitution
B. Emergency Legislative Decree No. 667 (Law No. 6749)
C. Legal regulations on employment contracts and the Labour Code
D. Reopening of proceedings
E. Case-law of the Constitutional Court
F. Case-law of the Court of Cassation
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS
A. Opinion on Emergency Legislative Decrees Nos. 667 to 676 adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law of the Council of Europe (Venice Commission)
B. General Comment no. 29 on the state of emergency (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11) of the UN Human Rights Committee
C. Revised European Social Charter
D. International Labour Organisation
IV. NOTICE OF DEROGATION BY TURKEY
THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS
A. The Turkish derogation
B. The scope of the case
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
A. As to admissibility
B. Merits
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Admissibility
B. Merits
IV. THE OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Damages
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest

Outcome for Article 8: violation