EIT: Valitus turkkilaistuomarin erottamisesta vallankaappausyrityksen jälkeen jäi tässä vaiheessa tutkimatta

16.3.2017 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) on ratkaissut Turkin viime vuoden vallankaappausyrityksen jälkeistä tuomarin erottamista koskevan valituksen ja katsonut, että Turkissa tehty lain muutos ainakin periaatteessa voi olla tehokas oikussuojakeino, minkä vuoksi valitus jätettiin tutkimatta kansallisten oikeussuojakeinojen käyttämättömyyden vuoksi.

EIT korosti, että päätöksessä ei millään tavalla oteta ennakolta kantaa siihen, onko kyseessä todella tehokas oikeussuojakeino, eikä mikään estä uuden valituksen laatimista EIT:lle sen jälkeen, kun Turkin korkein hallinto-oikeus on ratkaissut asiassa mahdollisesti tehdyn valituksen.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

In its decision in the case of Çatal v. Turkey (application no. 2873/17) the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.

The case concerns the dismissal of a judge by the Supreme Council of Judges, pursuant to a legislative decree adopted during the state of emergency, as one of a number of measures taken after the attempted coup d’État.

The Court has rejected Ms Çatal’s application, finding that she did not exhaust domestic remedies.

The Court observed in particular that a new remedy was available to Ms Çatal, provided for in Legislative Decree no. 6851, enabling her to challenge her dismissal before the Supreme Administrative Court (judicial review). The Supreme Administrative Court’s decision could then, where applicable, be challenged before the Constitutional Court (individual application). Following an application to the Constitutional Court and a ruling by that court, anyone could, if necessary, lodge with the European Court of Human Rights a complaint based on the Convention. Legislative Decree no. 685 had therefore put an end to the dispute as to whether the domestic courts had jurisdiction to judicially review the measures taken by the Supreme Council of Judges.

The Court also stated that its conclusion did not in any way prejudice a possible re-examination of the question of the effectiveness of the remedy in question, and particularly the ability of the national courts to establish consistent case-law compatible with the Convention requirements. It stressed, moreover, that it retained its ultimate power of scrutiny of any complaint submitted by applicants who, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, had exhausted the available domestic remedies.