The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 February 2014 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Paul Lemmens, Robert Spano, judges, and, Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 November 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms İnci Gürler Dalgıç, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Aydın. She was represented before the Court by Ms Z. Dalkıran, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 12 July 2000 the applicant was appointed as a civil servant. Prior to her appointment, she had signed an undertaking agreeing to be dismissed if the result of her background check, which was postponed until after her appointment in the interest of saving...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 3694/11 İnci GÜRLER DALGIÇ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 February 2014 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Paul Lemmens, Robert Spano, judges, and, Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 November 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms İnci Gürler Dalgıç, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Aydın. She was represented before the Court by Ms Z. Dalkıran, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 12 July 2000 the applicant was appointed as a civil servant. Prior to her appointment, she had signed an undertaking agreeing to be dismissed if the result of her background check, which was postponed until after her appointment in the interest of saving time, revealed an outcome that would have prevented her appointment from the outset. The background check conducted subsequently disclosed that the applicant had been convicted by the Ankara State Security Court just a few months prior to her appointment to the civil service, on the charge of aiding and abetting members of a terrorist organisation. The background check also revealed that according to
2 GÜRLER DALGIÇ v. TURKEY DECISION the police records, the applicant’s brother and husband had engaged in certain suspicious acts. Accordingly, the applicant was dismissed from her post, effective from 24 May 2001, on account of being unfit for the civil servant post. On 14 September 2001 the applicant objected to her dismissal before the İzmir Administrative Court. She argued, inter alia, that her dismissal on the basis of a conviction which had not yet been finalised was unlawful. In the meantime, on 6 February 2001 the Court of Cassation had quashed the applicant’s conviction, on the ground that the offence of which she was accused fell under Law no. 4616, concerning the suspension of criminal cases in respect of certain offences committed before 23 April 1999. Accordingly, on 3 May 2001 the Ankara State Security Court had ordered the suspension of the proceedings. Under Article 1 (4) of the Law no. 4616, the suspended proceedings could be resumed or a new prosecution could be brought in respect of the previous offence if the applicant committed before the expiry of the prescription period for that previous offence, an offence of the same kind or one which was punishable by a more severe sentence. On 19 June 2002 the İzmir Administrative Court upheld the applicant’s objection regarding her dismissal for the reasons advanced by her, and annulled the dismissal decision. On 22 September 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s decision. The administration requested the rectification of this decision. On 19 July 2006 the Supreme Administrative...