SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 21994/10 Hikmet YARGI against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 November 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Aleš Pejchal , President, Egidijus Kūris , Carlo Ranzoni, judges,

a nd Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 March 2010,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Hikmet Yargı , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Batman. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Çakan and Mr A. Ş . Deniz, lawyers practising in Batman.

2 . The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The circumstances of the case

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4 . The applicant was the owner of a property in the Toptancılar Sitesi area of Batman, which is located in close proximity to the Tüpraş Batman Oil Refinery (“ Tüpraş Refinery” or “ Tüpraş ”, a State-owned enterprise until its privatisation in 2005), and to an oil storage and supply facility run by the Ministry of Defence ( hereinafter “ANT ).

5 . On 3 May 2004 a large underground explosion took place in Toptancılar Sitesi , which resulted in three deaths and many injuries. The explosion and ensuing fire also damaged many properties in the vicinity, including that of the applicant.

6 . Further background information on the explosion, as well as the ensuing administrative and judicial developments, have been outlined in the case of Kurşun v. Turkey (no. 22677/10 , §§ 7-45, 30 October 2018).

7 . On 21 March 2005 the applicant brought compensation proceedings against Tüpraş and ANT for his losses arising from the explosion. On 10 November 2006 the applicant brought an additional action in respect of his remaining compensation claims.

8 . On 16 May 2008 the Batman Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant ’ s additional action for having become time ‑ barred.

9 . On 23 March 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the court of first-instance. Subsequently, on 18 June 2009 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant ’ s request for rectification. According to the information provided by the Government, the final decision of the Court of Cassation was served on the applicant on 13 July 2009.

COMPLAINTS

10 . The applicant complained that the aforementioned facts had given rise to a violation of his rights under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

11 . The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, noting that the final decision of the Court of Cassation had been served on him on 13 July 2009.

12 . The applicant did not contest the Government ’ s claim regarding the date of service of the relevant Court of Cassation decision.

13 . The Court observes that the present application was lodged with the Court on 30 March 2010, which is more than six months from the date of service of the final decision in the domestic proceedings.

14 . It follows accordingly that this application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2020 .

Hasan Bakırcı AleÅ¡ Pejchal              Deputy Registrar President