24 March 2016 Thursday

Ömür Kara and Onursal Özbek, no. 2013/4825, 24 March 2016

Monitoring of the institutional e-mail accounts of the applicants by their employer and use of their correspondence as evidence in the action for reinstatement

The Court found no violation of the right to privacy of communication on the ground that the inferior courts relied on relevant and sufficient grounds by making assessments as to whether the interference made by the employer through the monitoring of the institutional e-mail accounts of the applicants had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the termination of the applicants’ employment contracts had been reasonable and proportionate given their acts, as well as, on the ground that the contents of the applicants’ correspondence had not been caused to become public either during the proceedings or in the reasoning of judgment.

23 March 2016 Wednesday

Halis Toprak and Others, no. 2013/4488, 23 March 2016

Transfer of the Bank to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund for the public interest

The Court found no violation of the right to property on the ground that in the transfer of the Bank owned by the applicants to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund for the purpose of preventing further damages to the financial markets and ensuring the protection of the rights of depositors for the sake of the public interest, the fair balance between the public interest sought and the interference with the applicants’ right to property had not been impaired.

03 March 2016 Thursday

N.B.B. [Plenary], no. 2013/5653, 3 March 2016

Denial of the removal of the news concerning the applicant’s conviction in the past that is still accessible on the websites

The Court found a violation of the right to honour and reputation due to the rejection of the applicant’s request for blocking of access to the news which lost its actuality, the easy access of which was not necessary on the internet for historic, statistical VII and scientific researches, and which clearly impaired the applicant’s reputation who was not a politician or famous person in view of the public interest.

03 March 2016 Thursday

Tevfik Türkmen [Plenary], no. 2013/9704, 3 March 2016

Misuse of institutional e-mail account by a public officer for nonprofessional purposes

Violation of the right to respect for private life and freedom of communication on the grounds that the administration failed to struck a fair balance between the general interest pursued through the interference and the loss sustained by the applicant, who had no unfavourable opinion from his superiors, had no disciplinary sanction but was rewarded letters of appreciation and qualified as an “excellent” officer; and that the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life as well as freedom of communication was disproportionate.

25 February 2016 Thursday

Mehmet Kurt [Plenary], no. 2013/2552, 25 February 2016

Incumbent courts’ failure to duly examine the applicant’s allegations as to the impugned environmental activity

The Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to protect and improve his corporeal and spiritual existence as the inferior courts failed to duly examine his main allegations that the environmental nuisance caused by the plant established next to his immovable had an adverse impact on his health and quality of life and that the environmental assessment made by the relevant administration was insufficient, which thereby led to the conclusion that the public authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligations.

25 February 2016 Thursday

Erdem Gül and Can Dündar [Plenary], no. 2015/18567, 25 February 2016

Lack of justification for the requirements of “strong indication” and “necessity” sought for detention

The Court found a violation of the right to personal liberty and security due to the lack of justification for the requirements of “strong indication” and “necessity”; and a violation of the freedoms of expression and the press, in conjunction with the right to personal liberty and security, due to ordering detention without submitting any concrete fact other than the news published and without relevant justifications.

17 February 2016 Wednesday

Sıddıka Dülek and Others, no. 2013/2750, 17 February 2016

Dismissal of the request for a retrial in spite of the violation judgment rendered by the European Court of Human Rights

The Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life as the applicants’ request for a retrial was dismissed by the Supreme Military Administrative Court although the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the right to life in the application lodged by the applicants.

03 February 2016 Wednesday

Remezan Orak and Others, no. 2013/2229, 3 February 2016

Being subject to different treatment for membership of a certain trade union

The Court found a violation of the principle of equality (prohibition of discrimination) as it was concluded that in the assessment of their requests for reinstatement to work, the employees were subject to different treatment without any objective and reasonable basis but merely on the basis of the trade union of which they were a member. This was not found to pursue a legitimate aim.

10 December 2015 Thursday

Büyük Birlik Partisi (Grand Unity Party) and Saadet Partisi (Felicity Party) [Plenary], no. 2014/8843, 10 December 2015

State aid afforded to political parties

The Court found no violations of the rights to stand for election and to engage in political activities due to the inability of the political parties -failing to receive 3% of total valid votes- to receive state aid.

11 November 2015 Wednesday

K.A. [Plenary], no. 2014/13044, 11 November 2015

Conditions at the foreigners’ removal centre

The Court found violations of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity and the right to an effective remedy due to the poor detention conditions of the applicant placed in administrative detention, at the foreigners’ removal centre, pending his deportation and lack of an effective remedy to challenge in respect thereto; as well as of the right to personal liberty and security due to unlawfulness of his administrative detention, the authorities’ failure to duly communicate the related decisions to him and lack of an effective remedy whereby he could challenge the decisions.

04 June 2015 Thursday

Mehmet Ali Aydın [Plenary], no. 2013/9343, 4 June 2015

The margin of appreciation of the public authorities in political discussions on public interests or in debates on social issues

The Court found a violation of the freedom of expression as the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression did not pursue a legitimate aim, on the grounds that the applicant’s expressions did not praise violence or terrorist acts, encourage the individuals to adopt the methods of terrorism, incite to violence or call for racism, hatred, revenge or armed resistance as well as that even if the prosecution was suspended, the risk that the applicant might be prosecuted and punished again was still continuing.

04 June 2015 Thursday

Bekir Coşkun [Plenary], no. 2014/12151, 4 June 2015

Criticism against politicians

The Court found a violation of the freedoms of expression and the press due to the applicant’s imprisonment as a result of the criminal proceedings brought against him for an article where he criticised politicians.