Designation as a terrorist and removal from public service

Facts

The author is a national of Türkiye. Following a coup attempt in 2016, the State party designated the Hizmet/Gülen movement a terrorist organisation (FETÖ), declared a state of emergency, and enacted a series of decrees. The author was dismissed from his position as an engineer for a state-owned company on the grounds that he was associated with FETÖ and the failed coup d’état. He was named as a terrorist in the annexes to a decree, barring him from future public service employment. Domestic authorities rejected the author’s contestation of the dismissal. In 2017, a criminal investigation was launched against the author, and an arrest warrant was issued. The State party’s authorities accused the author of belonging to FETÖ and providing financial support to the organisation. The author went into hiding to avoid arrest, his passport was cancelled, and his application for a new passport was rejected. The author contends that, as a result, he lives in isolation, cannot attend medical appointments for fear of being arrested, and struggles to pay rent. The author’s application to the European Court of Human Rights was declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

The author alleges that the State party violated his rights under article article 2 (right to an effective remedy), article 7 (prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment), article 12 (1) and (2) (freedom of movement and the right to leave any country), article  14 (1) (right to a fair trial), article 17 (1) (right to privacy, honour, and reputation), article 19 (2) (freedom of expression), and article 22 (1) (freedom of association).

Admissibility

The Committee considered that the communication was inadmissible under articles 2, 3, and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee noted that the author could have filed, but did not file, an appeal to the State party’s administrative courts to contest the decision regarding his dismissal from employment. The Committee further noted that the author did not file his complaint with the State party’s Constitutional Court in a timely manner, and concluded that the author did not demonstrate due diligence in the exhaustion of domestic remedies regarding his dismissal. The author’s claims alleging violations of articles 14 (1), 17 (1), 19 (2), and 22 (1) were therefore inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Covenant. The author’s claim under article 17 (1) was likewise inadmissible, because his claim that his honour and reputation were unlawfully attacked by the inclusion of his name on a list of individuals associated with terrorism cannot be dissociated from the criminal proceedings against him, for which the author had not exhausted domestic remedies.

Additionally, the author had not substantiated his claim that the issuance of the arrest warrant without proof represented an impermissible restriction on his freedom of movement since he was forced as a result to live in hiding, and he had not substantiated the claim that he possessed a passport before the State party’s decree cancelling the passports of dismissed public sector employees. The author also did not allege to have contested the denial of his request for a passport before the administrative courts, and did not allege to have otherwise invoked his right to freedom of movement before domestic authorities, rendering his claims inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Covenant. Finally, the Committee considered that author’s claims under articles 7, 17 (1), and 14 (1) of the Covenant are inadmissible because he had not sufficiently substantiated the claims with respect to the issuance of the arrest warrant.