Published on 25 October 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 46359/20 Tuncay KARAKUÅž against Turkey and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 7 October 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern claims brought by the applicants before civil courts on the basis of the Consumer Act with a view to challenging the existence of a debt as established by promissory notes issued by them to the order of a private school in the course of enforcement proceedings. The civil courts declared themselves incompetent to examine the applicants’ claims on the basis of section 5 of Legislative Decree no. 670 and section 16 (3) of Legislative Decree no. 675, holding that the private school in question had been shut down and transferred to the State pursuant to emergency measures in the aftermath of the attempted coup and that therefore all legal actions against such institutions should be lodged against the State before administrative courts.

The applicants lodged an individual appeal with the Constitutional Court, complaining of an infringement with their right of access to a court on the grounds that the civil courts’ refusal to examine their claims had been manifestly unreasonable. They argued in that connection that the exception provided for in the said legislative decrees gave administrative courts power to settle disputes only when they arose out of debt claims lodged against the State as the successor of the shut-down institutions, which had not been the situation in their case since the enforcement proceedings in question had been lodged by the State against them. On various dates, the Constitutional Court declared their appeals inadmissible by way of a summary decision on account of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were denied access to court as a result of the refusal of the civil courts to examine their claims.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, could the applicants be expected to bring their claims before administrative courts having regard to the fact that the type of declaratory action ( bonodan kaynaklanan menfi tespit istemi ) sought by them in the case is outside the field of application of administrative law proceedings?

If so, the Government are requested to provide the Court with relevant case-law examples regarding the competence or non-competence of administrative courts in such disputes.

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

46359/20

KarakuÅŸ v. Turkey

06/10/2020

Tuncay KARAKUÅž 1973 Samsun Turkish

OÄŸuzhan YILMAZ

46606/20

Koysal v. Turkey

06/10/2020

Murat KOYSAL 1973 Samsun Turkish

OÄŸuzhan YILMAZ

46617/20

Parlak v. Turkey

06/10/2020

Fatih PARLAK 1979 Samsun Turkish

OÄŸuzhan YILMAZ

50147/20

Ä°skender v. Turkey

23/10/2020

Ali Bayram Ä°SKENDER 1976 Samsun Turkish

OÄŸuzhan YILMAZ

51843/20

Yıldız v. Turkey

03/11/2020

Mustafa YILDIZ 1972 Samsun Turkish

OÄŸuzhan YILMAZ

52564/20

Taplak v. Turkey

03/11/2020

Murat TAPLAK 1978 Samsun Turkish

OÄŸuzhan YILMAZ