KANDEMIR v. TURKIYE - 30906/19 (Art 6 s 1 (civil) - Fair trial - Ineffective judicial review of the grounds for the applicant's dismissal, following the declaration of a state of emergency : Preliminary objection dismissed : Second Section) French Text [2026] ECHR 18 (03 February 2026)

Executive summary

The European Court of Human Rights heard a case brought by Mehmet Kandemir against Türkiye over the termination of his employment at TÜBİTAK-BİLGEM after the 2016 state of emergency. The source text states that the case concerned Article 6 § 1 and Article 15, and that the Court dismissed the preliminary objection.

The judgment text says the domestic courts’ review of the dismissal was ineffective because their reasoning did not sufficiently explain why criminal proceedings against third parties or administrative irregularities could, by themselves, create suspicion about the applicant and justify breaking the employment relationship. It also states that the Article 15 derogation did not justify the failure to provide a fair procedure.

Key points

• Applicant: Mehmet Kandemir; respondent: Türkiye; dispute arose after his dismissal from TÜBİTAK-BİLGEM during the post-coup state of emergency.
• Holding: preliminary objection dismissed; Article 6 § 1 fair-trial violation found on the source text’s framing; Article 15 derogation did not cure the procedural defect.
• Reasoning: domestic judgments lacked sufficient motivation on why third-party criminal proceedings or administrative irregularities justified suspicion against the applicant.
• Context: TÜBİTAK-BİLGEM was described as a sensitive security/national-security research center with security and cryptologic clearance requirements.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: no sanctions or export-control measures are mentioned, but the case turns on security-screening, trust, and dismissal in a sensitive state-linked technology environment.

Why it matters

The decision is relevant to sovereign-risk and national-security screening because it shows the Court scrutinizing dismissals justified by broad security suspicions in a sensitive public research institution. For sanctions/compliance teams, it signals that state-emergency or security rationales still need individualized, well-reasoned evidence when employment action is later tested in court.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the case underscores the need to document specific, individualized grounds when restricting access to sensitive roles or terminating personnel on security grounds. It also suggests that reliance on generalized suspicion, third-party prosecutions, or post-coup context alone may be vulnerable if domestic review does not spell out the causal link between the facts and the employee’s dismissal.