10 Jul Discrimination based on gender

In the case of Hülya Ebru Demirel v. Turkey (application no. 30733/08, 19/06/2018) the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 14 (right to non-discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on account of the absence of adequate reasoning in the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision, and, no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on account of the conflicting decisions rendered by the Supreme Administrative Court.

The case concerned the applicant’s allegation of sexual discrimination because she was denied a job as a security officer at a state-run regional electricity distribution company. The applicant passed a civil service exam and was informed that she would be appointed as a security officer at the Kilis branch of the Turkish Electricity Distribution company. However, the company refused to appoint her as she was not a man who had completed military service. The applicant initially won a discrimination court case against the company in 2001 but that decision was overturned on appeal by the Supreme Administrative Court in December 2002.

Applicant’s further appeals (including a request for rectification) were all unsuccessful, with the final decision being handed down in June 2009 by the Twelfth Division of the Supreme Administrative Court. That court did not follow an earlier ruling in another case decided by the General Assembly of Administrative Proceedings Divisions of the Supreme Administrative Court, which had found that a woman had been discriminated against in circumstances similar to those of the applicant.

The applicant complained that the decisions of the administrative authorities and the courts constituted sex discrimination. She also complained that the domestic courts had delivered contradictory decisions in identical cases and that the Supreme Administrative Court had failed to examine her submissions. The Court found in particular that the decisions of the domestic authorities had amounted to a discriminatory difference in treatment as they had not provided any reasons other than the applicant’s sex for her not having been appointed to the post in question. The Court concluded that it had been the sole opportunity for the Twelfth Division to differentiate the case of MsDemirel from that of the other ruling before her case had become final. It concluded further that the Supreme Administrative Court had failed to fulfil its obligation to provide adequate reasoning for dismissing the applicant’s rectification request since her arguments concerning the prohibition of discrimination between men and woman had not been reviewed at any stage before the courts.

Regarding the conflicting decisions rendered by the Supreme Administrative Court, the Court observed that conflicting decisions in similar cases heard in the same court which, additionally, was the court of last instance, might breach the principle of a fair trial. However, it considered that the existing difference of interpretation between the Twelfth Division and the General Assembly of Administrative Proceedings Divisions of the Supreme Administrative Court did not amount to “profound and long-lasting divergences” in the relevant case-law. Therefore, the situation complained of on this account did not, in itself, constitute a violation of Article 6 § 1.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights