CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 avril 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8E1B9F9 { width:203.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 31257/09 Yasemin KABAL against Turkey and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25   April 2017 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 applications lodged on 8 May 2009, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, is set out in the appendix. They were represented before the Court by Mr G. Candoğan, a lawyer practising in Ankara. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     At the time of the events giving rise to the present applications, the applicants worked as civil servants in Halkbank, a state-owned bank. Following certain legislative amendments, the authorities started proceedings for the privatisation of Halkbank, and the applicants were, therefore, assigned to other public institutions. Furthermore, taking into account the fact that their salaries were higher than the employees of the same grade working in their new workplaces, the authorities decided not to give any raise to the applicants until the salaries of their colleagues reached the same level. 5.     In 2006 the applicants asked to be reinstated and their requests were rejected. 6.     On various dates, the applicants initiated proceedings before the administrative courts, which dismissed their cases based on the fact that the applicants had failed to bring their cases within the time-limits provided for by law. The courts held that the applicants should have initiated proceedings within sixty days following the notification of their assignments to other public institutions. 7.     In 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgments of the first instance courts. During the appeal proceedings the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court filed his written opinion on the cases without putting forward any new arguments. He simply invited the court to uphold the impugned decisions. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s opinions were not communicated to the applicants. B.     Relevant domestic law 8.     The description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Kılıç and Others v. Turkey ((dec.) no. 33162/10, §§ 10-13, 3 December 2013). COMPLAINTS 9.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion to them during the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated their right to an adversarial and fair hearing. 10.     Furthermore, relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the outcome of their cases and stated that the proceedings had not been fair. 11.     The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 14 of the Convention stating that their assignment to other public institutions was not based on any objective and reasonable criteria. 12.     Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants further maintained that the fact that they were not given any salary raise in their new workplaces constituted a breach of their right to respect for property. 13.     Finally, without relying on any Article of the Convention, the applicants complained about mobbing in their new work places. THE LAW 14.     Given that the applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them in accordance with the Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court. A.     Non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion 15.     The applicants complained that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion to them during the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated their right to an adversarial and fair hearing. In this respect, they relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 16.     The Government rejected the allegations. 17.     The Court notes that it has already examined the same issue in the case of Kılıç and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 33162/10, §§ 19-23, 3   December 2013) and considered that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage. Accordingly, it has declared this complaint inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention. 18.     Having in particular regard to the content of the respective written opinions filed by the Chief Public Prosecutor in the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court (see paragraph 7 above), the Court finds no particular reasons in the present applications which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned case. 19.     In the light of the foregoing, this complaint is inadmissible and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention. B.     Other complaints 20.     In the light of the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. 21.     It follows that this part of the applications must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 18 May 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Valeriu Griţco Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No. Application no. Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   31257/09 Yasemin KABAL 14/09/1968 Eskişehir     31264/09 Bahar CEYHAN 03/06/1967 İstanbul     31293/09 Kıyasettin TEMEL 14/03/1959 İstanbul     31308/09 Berrin GÜNAL 21/01/1965 İstanbul