I.C. v. TURKIYE - 48061/19 (Art 6 s 1 (civil) - Fair trial - Insufficient judicial review of the dismissal of a lecturer at a founding university - Remainder inadmissible : Second Section) French Text [2026] ECHR 5 (13 January 2026)

Executive summary

The European Court of Human Rights held that Türkiye had provided insufficient judicial review of a lecturer’s dismissal from a foundation university after the state of emergency decrees were used to end his contract on the basis that his name appeared among ByLock users. The Court found that the domestic courts did not gather information or documents on the accuracy of that allegation and did not give the applicant a real opportunity to challenge it; it also held that the Article 15 derogation did not justify the shortfall in fair-trial guarantees.

Key points

• Applicant: I.C., a lecturer at TOBB University; respondent: Türkiye
• Dismissal was based on emergency decrees 667 and 668 and an alleged ByLock connection
• Held: Article 6 § 1 violated because judicial review was insufficient and equality of arms was undermined
• Reasoning: domestic courts failed to test the employer’s factual basis or obtain supporting materials
• Held: Article 15 did not excuse the procedural deficiency; restrictions exceeded what was strictly necessary
• Sanctions/export-control angle: ByLock was treated as a terrorism-linked indicator, but the case concerns due process, not sanctions measures

Why it matters

For sanctions and national-security audiences, the case shows the Court scrutinizing emergency-era dismissals that rely on association-based allegations tied to terrorism designations. It signals that even in heightened security contexts, domestic processes must still be able to test the evidentiary basis of adverse employment actions affecting alleged security-linked persons.

Implications

Compliance and enforcement bodies relying on emergency, security, or designation-based records should expect judicial review to focus on the underlying evidence and the target’s ability to rebut it. In litigation, challengers can use this decision to attack dismissals or deprivations grounded on untested intelligence-derived allegations, especially where review is summary or record-poor.