Communicated on 23 January 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 36488/08 Tamer TANRIKULU against Turkey lodged on 29 July 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Tamer Tanr ı kulu , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Iğdır . He is represented before the Court by Mr B. Mugan , a lawyer practising in Ankara .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 14 January 2005, while the applicant was a conscript soldier in the army, he fell headlong from the roof when he was mounting guard. Subsequently, he was treated in different civilian and military hospitals. According to a medical report, dated 4 May 2005, the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from left parietal craniotomy and was declared unfit for military service.

On 8 July 2005 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Defence and requested compensation in respect of his injury.

Following tacit dismissal of the claim by the administrative authorities, on 1 November 2005 the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, in respect of his health problem sustained during his military service. He requested 20,000 Turkish lira s (TRY) (approximately 12,400 euros (EUR) [1] ) in respect of pecuniary damage and the same sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage .

The expert report dated 4 October 2007 assessed the applicant ’ s pecuniary damage at TRY 58,384 (approximately EUR 36,260).

On 19 October 2007 the applicant asked the court to increase his initial claim (amendment, “ ıslah ” ) stating that he had only become aware of the extent of his pecuniary damage for the first time when he received the expert ’ s report.

On 28 November 2007 the Supreme Military Administrative Court ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him the full amount of his initial claim in respect of pecuniary damage, namely TRY 20,000. It awarded him a further TRY 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. However, the court dismissed the applicant ’ s request for amendment, considering itself bound by the initial claims made at the time of bringing of the case. The court stated in particular:

“The purpose of an amendment is to rectify a procedural act. Having regard to the judgment of the Constitutional Court published in the Official Journal of 4 November 2000, we must conclude that, in civil law, injured persons are entitled to seek additional compensation once an expert report has been issued. However, in the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, the time-limits of one year and sixty days from the date of referral to the administrative authorities apply. Under section 46(4) of the Supreme Military Administrative Court Act, the amount claimed cannot be rectified once those deadlines have passed. Consequently, the applicant ’ s amendment claim must be rejected for being out of time ...”

By a judgment of 16 April 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant ’ s request for rectification of its previous decision.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time can be found in Eşim v. Turkey , no. 59601/09, § § 11 and 12 , 17 September 2013 .

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been deprived of his right to a fair trial and effective access to a court on the ground that the Supreme Military Administrative Court had rejected his claim to amend the initial claims.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the refusal of the Supreme Military Administrative Court to allow the applicant to amend his initial claims ( ıslah ) amount to a breach of the applicant ’ s right of access to a court, implicitly guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

[1] 1. All conversions into euros have been made on the basis of the rate of exchange in force at the material time.