SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36821/10 SEDE PETROL ÃœRÃœNLERÄ° SANAYÄ° VE TÄ°CARET LTD. ÅžTÄ°. against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 June 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Ledi Bianku , President, Nebojša Vučinić , Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , judges,

and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 June 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 is a company has its headquarters in Adana . It was represented before the Court by Mr E. Gülmen and Mr A. Bozlu , lawyers practising in Adana and Mersin.

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

A. The circumstances of the case

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

4. Relying on a tax audit report, on 24 August 2006 the Yüreğir Tax Office imposed a fine on the applicant company.

5. On 22 September 2006 the applicant company initiated administrative proceedings before the Adana Tax Court seeking the annulment of the fine.

6. On 30 January 2008 the Adana Tax Court dismissed the case (2006/760E, 2008/60K).

7. On 23 December 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of 30 January 2008 (2008/3045E, 2008/4216 K). During the appeal proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court submitted her written opinion on the merits of the case. She briefly stated that the decision of the first instance court was in line with domestic law and should be upheld. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant.

8. On 28 January 2010 the applicant company ’ s rectification request was rejected.

B. Relevant domestic law

9. A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Kılıç and others v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 33162/10, §§ 10-13, 3 December 2013).

COMPLAINTS

10. The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s written opinion during the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated its right to an adversarial and fair hearing. Under the same heading, the applicant alleged that the administrative proceedings had not been fair.

THE LAW

A. Non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s written opinion

11. The applicant company complained that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s written opinion during the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated its right to an adversarial and fair hearing. In this respect, it relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

12. The Government rejected the allegation.

13. The Court notes that it has already examined the same issue in the case of Kılıç and others v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 33162/10, §§ 19 ‑ 23, 3 December 2013) and considered that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage. Accordingly, it has declared this complaint inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention.

14. Having in particular regard to the content of the written opinion filed by the Chief Public Prosecutor in the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court, the Court finds no particular reasons in the present application which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned case.

15. In the light of the foregoing, this complaint is inadmissible and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention.

B. Alleged unfairness of the Proceedings

16. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the administrative proceedings had not been fair.

17. In the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that these submissions by the applicant do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its protocols. It follows that this complaint must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2018 .

Hasan Bakırcı Ledi Bianku              Deputy Registrar President