Individual Application

The Facts

The applicants passed the written examination held by the Ministry of National Defence (“the Administration”) for internal recruitment to the position of national defence expert and were qualified to take the oral examination; they were then appointed as national defence experts upon successfully passing the oral examination. The administrative court dismissed the action brought by the Trade Union of Office Civil Servants (“the Union”) for the annulment of the entire oral examination. Upon the Union’s request for an appeal against the impugned dismissal, the regional administrative court quashed the decision and ruled with final effect that the examination in question be annulled. The Council of State dismissed the defendant administration’s appellate request without conducting an examination on the grounds that the decision of the regional administrative court was final.

Following the annulment of the oral examination by the regional administrative court, the administration terminated the contracts of all personnel appointed as national defence experts. The applicants stated that they were informed of the final decision in question when they received the letter of dismissal -on the day when the letter was written-.

The Applicants’ Allegations

The applicants maintained that their right to access to a court had been violated due to the fact that they had not been notified of the action for annulment concerning the entire oral examination in which they had passed successfully.

The Court’s Assessment

In the present case, the applicants could not participate in the proceedings relating to the oral examination which they had passed, as they had not been notified of the case; consequently, they were deprived of the possibility of presenting their arguments on the merits of the dispute, on the matters which they considered to be capable of affecting the outcome of the case, and of submitting evidence to substantiate their claims.

Additionally, it has been found that the individual interest of the applicants in being informed of the proceedings in question, which has a direct impact on their rights, outweighs the public interest in ensuring procedural economy. In this regard, it has been considered that the failure to notify the proceedings has substantially prejudiced the delicate balance between the public interest and the individual interest to the detriment of the applicants, and it has been found that depriving the applicants of the opportunity to present their claims and evidence before the trial court has imposed an excessive and disproportionate burden on the applicants.

Furthermore, considering that the subject matter of the present case pertains to the annulment of an examination in which a large number of people participated, it has been established that the burden of the failure to resolve the matters which can be remedied by legal provisions on the implementation of the notification procedure is entirely placed on the applicants. In the light of these considerations, the impugned interference with the applicants’ right to access to a court has been found disproportionate.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial.