KENDİRCİ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 60442/08;37311/10;57969/10;61634/10;72427/10 • ECHR ID: 001-141397
Document date: January 28, 2014
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 60442/08 Hakan KENDÄ°RCÄ° against Turkey and 4 other applications (see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović , President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges , and Stephen Phillips Acting D eputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above applications listed in the appendix ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The applicants were issued with traffic fines for violating various provisions of the Traffic Code (Law no. 2918). They all brought proceedings before the Magistrates ’ Courts, objecting to these fines. In each case, the courts evaluated and rejected their objections without holding a hearing.
3. All applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of their inability to submit their arguments before the domestic courts during the proceedings concerning their objections to the traffic fines. Details of the facts and criminal proceedings are indicated in the table below.
No.
Application
no.
Date(s) of Traffic-Fine
Date(s) of First Instance Decision
1.
60442/08
30 April 2008
31 July 2008
2.
37311/10
9 October 2009
19 March 2010
3.
57969/10
15 February 2010, 27 February 2010 and 12 March 2010
12 March 2010, 28 March 2010 and 14 June 2010
4.
61634/10
16 April 2009
14 September 2009 and 4 March 2011
5.
72427/10
4 December 2009
8 January 2010
B. Relevant domestic law
4. A description of the relevant law may be found in in Eksert Turizm Taşımacılık Tekstil Gıda San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti . v. Turkey and 7 other applications ( dec. ), nos. 40988/06 , 31143/09 , 38463/09 , 39119/09 , 41881/06 , 47518/07 , 47953/09 , 58109/09, 2 July 2013.
COMPLAINTS
5. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the lack of an oral hearing and their inability to challenge the submissions of the administration had violated the principle of a public hearing, adversarial proceedings and equ ity of arms.
6. C ertain applicants also alleged violations under Articles 6 , 8 and 13 of the Convent ion and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the proceedings before the magistrates ’ courts were not fair and that the traffic fines issued to them interfered with their rights guaranteed under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol N o. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the Applications
7. Given the similarity of the applications as regards both fact and law, the Court deems it appropriate to join them.
B. Article 6 of the Convention
8. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they had been unable to defend themselves in per son or through legal assistance as there had been no public hearing in their cases. Article 6 § 1, in so far as relevant, provides:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
9. The Court has dealt with a series of cases similar to the present ones in Eksert Turizm Ta ÅŸ imacilik Tekstil Gida San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Åž ti . v. Turkey and 7 other applications (( dec. ), nos. 40988/06, 31143/09, 38463/09, 39119/09, 41881/06, 47518/07, 47953/09, 58109/09, 2 July 2013). The present complaints are indistinguishable from the complaints in those cases.
10. It follows that this part of the applications is inadmi ssible for being manifestly ill ‑ founded, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C . Other C omplaints
11. Lastly, certain applicants also alleged violations under Articles 6 , 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol N o. 1 to the Convention.
12. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that the remainder of the complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of any of the above Articles of the Convention. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Stephen Phillips Dragoljub Popović A cting Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
60442/08
10/12/2008
Hakan KENDÄ°RCÄ°
01/11/1972
Mersin
37311/10
08/04/2010
Bulent KAPICI
17/12/1968
Ankara
57969/10
08/06/2010
Şükrü Yıldırım
01/01/1980
Şanlıurfa
61634/10
22/09/2010
Savaş ÖZOK
15/11/1967
Ä°zmir
Halil Çağlar AKBULUT
72427/10
13/10/2010
Alper KESRÄ°KLÄ°OÄžLU
10/03/1977
Ä°stanbul