Individual Application

The Facts

The applicant, having successfully passed the examination for street wardenship, was not appointed because the security clearance investigation was negative. The action for annulment brought by the applicant was dismissed by the incumbent court on the grounds that his sibling had been given a suspended sentence for theft of items kept in a building and had separately been convicted of offences including sexual abuse of a child, aggravated robbery, and violation of the inviolability of domicile. The applicant’s subsequent appellate requests were also dismissed.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant maintained that his right to a reasoned decision had been violated in the action for annulment brought against the administrative act of not being admitted to the profession of street wardenship due to the security clearance, as the judgment failed to address an argument that could have affected the outcome of the proceedings.

The Court’s Assessment

In cases of appeal against the non-appointment of an individual on the grounds of a security clearance investigation yielding unfavourable results, it is of importance to provide a clear and detailed account of the reasons for the negative result and to substantiate how the information obtained through the investigation undermines the applicant’s eligibility for the position in question. In this regard, judicial authorities are expected to provide a detailed account of the information obtained through security investigations in their decisions and to evaluate such findings in the context of the institution to which the applicant would be appointed and the duties they would assume. It is crucial to establish that whether the findings underlying the negative security clearance are directly attributable to the applicant or reveal a current and personal connection to him. Furthermore, in order to prevent arbitrariness, it is incumbent upon the courts to provide a reasoned justification as to how such a link is established.

Additionally, the principle that individuals cannot be held responsible for the acts of their relatives is among the universal tenets of the rule of law. In a state governed by the rule of law, holding an individual accountable for the conduct of others is unacceptable, unless there are exceptional circumstances explicitly provided by law. It is incompatible with the principle of the rule of law for public authorities to impose sanctions on individuals for the acts of another person over whom they have no legal or factual control or responsibility.

In the present case, it has been observed that the incumbent court, in dismissing the applicant’s action challenging the denial of his appointment to the position of street wardenship, relied on the imprisonment sentences of the applicant’s sibling. The court, however, merely referred to this information without further analysis. It appears that the court did not provide an evaluation of how the acts of the applicant’s sibling would adversely impact the applicant’s ability to perform the duties of a warden.

As a rule, where the relevant decisions contain sufficient reasoning on substantive issues, it is considered reasonable for the appellate courts to make an assessment by referring to such decisions. However, in cases where court decisions lack sufficient reasoning, appellate courts are obliged to address the substantive objections raised by the parties in a reasoned manner. In the present case, it has been observed that the incumbent court’s decision did not contain any reasoning in this respect, nor did the appellate authorities provide any evaluation based on the court’s decision. Considering the proceedings as a whole, it has been observed that the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision has been violated.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to a reasoned decision under the right to a fair trial.