CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juin 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 8 July 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 62557/15 Ayşe Neşe GÜL against Türkiye lodged on 15 December 2015 communicated on 19 June 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of 27 November 2014 of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (became “the Council of Judges and Prosecutors” (HSK) since the constitutional revision of 2017) to transfer the applicant, who was a first-grade judge at the time, from her post in Ankara to a post in Edirne. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the requirements of independence and impartiality, the right to an adversarial procedure, to an oral hearing and to a reasoned decision were not observed in the proceedings before the HSK where she challenged the latter’s decision of 27   November 2014 and that she had no access to a court to challenge the final decision of that body. She complains in this respect that the manner in which she was transferred from Ankara to Edirne in the absence of judicial review is incompatible with the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES In the light of the principles established in Bilgen v. Turkey (no.   1571/07, §§   65-81 and §§ 92-97, 9 March 2021) and Eminağaoğlu v.   Turkey (no.   76521/12, §§ 36, 76 and §§ 99-104, 9 March 2021) did the proceedings before the HSK comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the applicant have access to a court satisfying all the requirements of that provision, including the right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal?