CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mars 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 March 2023   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 41253/19 and 51638/19 Tülay DELİBAŞ against Türkiye and Durmuş İLHAN against Türkiye lodged on 23 July 2019 and 3 September 2019 respectively communicated on 7 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern civil proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court (SMAC). The applicants complain under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention that the Supreme Military Administrative Court which examined their cases cannot be considered as independent and impartial tribunal. In this respect, they maintain that the two military officers who sat on the bench remained under the hierarchy of the military authorities and did not enjoy the same judicial guarantees as the other military judges. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the court which dealt with the applicants’ cases independent and impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Tanışma v.   Turkey , no. 32219/05, §§ 74-84, 17 November 2015)?