ECHR judgment of June 4, 2019 in the case of Yilmaz v. Turkey (Yilmaz v. Tyrkey) (application No. 36607/06).
In 2006, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.
In the case, an application was successfully considered regarding the refusal to appoint a teacher to a post abroad because his wife wears a Muslim headdress. The case contained a violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Circumstances of the case
The applicant is a teacher of religious culture and works in the public education system. He successfully passed the contest, which was supposed to allow him to work abroad. Subsequently, he even participated in an adaptation seminar. However, a report compiled from an audit carried out in accordance with the safety directive indicated that his wife wore a Muslim headdress outside work and that the applicant’s house was divided into male and female halves. On this basis, the appraisal committee of the ministry objected to the applicant working abroad.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
Regarding compliance with article 8 of the Convention. (a) Applicability. Disputes regarding the exercise of professional functions can affect personal life in two ways: either due to the consequences of a disputed measure or due to its reasons (see the Decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court in the Denisov v. Ukraine case of September 25) 2018, complaint N 76639/11).
In the present case, it follows from the decisions of the administrative courts that the refusal to appoint the applicant to the post was based on the conclusions of a security audit, during which facts were established regarding the applicant's personal life, namely his lifestyle and how his wife dressed. Furthermore, it was mentioned that in the past the applicant had been detained by the police once, although this led to the termination of the criminal case due to the absence of the crime.
The evaluation committee did not consider the applicant’s professional abilities or skills for working abroad, taking into account only the results of the security audit. However, they attached the predominant importance to the privacy elements of the applicant and his wife, for example, the fact that she wore a Muslim headdress.
The Court, of course, does not exclude the possibility that under certain circumstances requirements related to public office may require that the conclusions made during the security audit be taken into account.
Nevertheless, the Court is not entirely clear to what extent the wearing of a Muslim headdress by the applicant’s wife and how he behaves at home could harm the public interest or the requirements related to teaching and education.
As regards the detention of the applicant in the past, it did not lead to criminal prosecution and did not prevent the applicant from becoming a teacher in a public educational institution.
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (adopted unanimously).
The Court also unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings.
In application of Article 41 of the Convention. The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction.