Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Gür and Bedir v. Türkiye*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Turkey in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education). The case concerned the cancellation of the passports of two university research assistants, Mr. Gür and Mr. Bedir, who were dismissed from their posts following the attempted coup in 2016. The passport cancellations prevented them from pursuing doctoral programs abroad, for which they had already been accepted. The Court determined that the legal basis for the passport cancellations was not sufficiently clear or foreseeable, leading to an unlawful interference with their rights.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment addresses two applications that were joined due to their similar subject matter.
* It outlines the background of the applicants, their dismissals, and the cancellation of their passports based on Legislative Decree no. 689.
* The Court examines the admissibility of the applications, addressing and dismissing the Turkish Government’s objections regarding incompatibility *ratione materiae*, loss of victim status, and non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* On the merits, the Court analyzes the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
* It finds a violation of both articles, concluding that the passport cancellations were not “in accordance with the law” and interfered with the applicants’ right to private life and education.
* Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, awarding the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the importance of the “lawfulness” requirement under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, emphasizing that interferences with private life must have a clear, accessible, and foreseeable legal basis to protect against arbitrary application.
* It confirms that the right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 extends to the opportunity to pursue higher education, including doctoral studies, abroad.
* The judgment highlights that blanket measures, such as the legislative decrees adopted during the state of emergency in Turkey, may not meet the Convention’s standards if they lack sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness.
* The ECtHR reiterated that domestic remedies must be effective in practice and theory to be considered exhausted.
**** This decision is related to the rights of Turkish citizens, but it also has implications for Ukrainians, as it reinforces the importance of upholding human rights and the rule of law even in times of emergency. It serves as a reminder that restrictions on fundamental rights must be proportionate, necessary, and based on clear and foreseeable legal provisions.
