BATUR - Turkey (N° 38604/97)

ERBEK - Turkey (N° 38923/97)

DURAN and others - Turkey (N° 38925/97)

TORAMAN - Turkey (N° 39830/98)

OZDEN - Turkey (N° 40276/98)

GOKDEN and KARACOL - Turkey (N° 40535/98)

KAPLAN and others - Turkey (N° 40536/98)

GUMUSALAN - Turkey (N° 40688/98)

DOGAN - Turkey (N° 40689/98)

DURGUN - Turkey (N° 40751/98)

EREZ - Turkey (N° 40752/98)

DENDEN and others - Turkey (N° 40754/98)

YILDIRIM - Turkey (N° 40800/98)

GULGONUL - Turkey (N° 40806/98)

ABUL - Turkey (N° 40807/98)

DERE - Turkey (N° 43916/98)

Decision 4.7.2000 [Section I]

The applicants, who were non-commissioned officers in the Turkish army, were dismissed by decision of the Supreme Military Council; this decision was definitive and was not amenable to judicial review.

Inadmissible under Article 6(1): The States are entitled to draw a distinction between criminal law and disciplinary law "in so far as the boundary thus drawn does not undermine the object and aim of Article 6". Whether a dispute falls within one or other of these areas of law, and therefore whether or not Article 6 is applicable, will also depend on the nature of the offence and the nature and severity of the sanction incurred. In the present case the offences of which the applicants were accused were, under Turkish law, a matter for disciplinary law. By joining the army, the applicants chose to comply with military discipline, which, owing to the needs of the service, implies restrictions that could not be imposed on civilians. The decision to dismiss the applicants belongs to that special disciplinary system which concerns a group having a specific status and is not a criminal penalty for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Convention. Existence of "disputes" relating to "civil" rights: since the Pellegrin v. France judgment of 8 December 1999 disputes concerning public servants whose posts involve participation in responsibilities of the administration in so far as the latter is acting as the depositary of public authority responsibility for protecting the general interest of the State are excluded from the scope of Article 6(1): incompatible ratione materiae.