AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 September 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Ahmet İlhan Tarhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Izmir.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is civil servant who works as a tax inspector at the Ministry of Finance.
On 29 May 2000 he was appointed temporarily to a post in another city for three months.
On 11 July 2000 the applicant brought a case against the Ministry of Finance, complaining that the city to which he had been appointed fell outside the jurisdiction of the district in which he officially worked. He requested the stay of execution and annulment of his transfer.
Following the end of his three-month appointment, on an unspecified date, the applicant was appointed to his previous post.
On 15 September 2000 the Malatya Administrative Court delivered a partial decision and dismissed the applicant’s request for a stay of execution of the original administrative act.
On 1 February 2001 the Administrative Court dismissed the case.
On 2 March 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
On 4 July 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for rectification.
The applicant complained under Article 4 of the Convention that he had been subjected to forced labour in that he had had to work in another city for three months without his consent.
Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant maintained that the proceedings had lasted for an unreasonably long period.
The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the Administrative Court’s interpretation of domestic law.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Deputy Registrar President