The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 October 2016 as a Committee composed of: Valeriu Griţco, President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 October 2009, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Ms Mürüvet Seyhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Antalya. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant worked as a...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 54940/09 Mürüvet SEYHAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 October 2016 as a Committee composed of: Valeriu Griţco, President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 October 2009, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Ms Mürüvet Seyhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Antalya. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant worked as a technician and retired on 17 April 2006. On 30 September 1987 she completed a graduate course, namely Economics, at Anadolu University.
2 SEYHAN v. TURKEY DECISION 5. On 7 June 1999 the applicant asked Türk Telekom, where she was working, to bring her pay scale into line with her new status as a graduate. Since she had obtained a university degree, she expected to be promoted to a higher grade for each year of work as an economist, in accordance with Article 36 of the Law on Civil Servants (Law No. 657). That, in turn, would have entitled her to a higher salary and pension. On an unspecified date her request was rejected. 6. On an unspecified date the applicant brought an action before the Kayseri Administrative Court for the annulment of the decision to reject her request. 7. On 16 October 2000 the Kayseri Administrative Court dismissed her action. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. 8. On 24 December 2013 the Eleventh Division of the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the previous ruling. 9. On 29 September 2005 the Kayseri Administrative Court once again dismissed the applicant’s claims. Arguing that that decision was unlawful, the applicant appealed against it. 10. On 12 June 2007 the Eleventh Division of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision. 11. On an unspecified date the applicant petitioned for rectification of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment. On 18 February 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s petition. The decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 10 April 2009. THE LAW 12. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national courts had not been concluded within a reasonable time. Relying on Articles 4, 14, 17 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, she further alleged that she had been required to perform compulsory labour, had been discriminated against and that her right to an education had been denied. 13. The Gove...