SECOND SECTION

CASE OF ALHAN v. TURKEY

(Application no. 8163/07)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 April 2013

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Alhan v. Turkey,

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

Dragoljub Popović, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 12 March 2013,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 8163/07) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Ms Serap Alhan (“the applicant”), on 1 February 2007.

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

3. On 14 September 2010 the application was declared partly inadmissible and the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings was communicated to the Government.

4. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Istanbul.

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

7. On 24 August 2000 the applicant instituted compensation proceedings before the Eskişehir Administrative Court claiming that she had contracted (HEPATIT-C) from the surgical instruments used during her operation.

8. On 6 November 2001 the Eskişehir Administrative Court found the applicant’s objection groundless and refused her request for compensation.

9. On 21 December 2001 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 6 November 2001.

10. On 30 January 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first instance court’s judgment.

11. On 1 August 2004 the applicant requested rectification of the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision.

12. On 17 August 2004 the Eskişehir Administrative Court issued an interim decision and noted that the fee for rectification had not been paid. The court asked the applicant to correct this procedural shortcoming within fifteen days.

13. On 7 October 2004, upon her non-compliance with the interim decision of the court, the court decided not to put the applicant’s rectification request into action.

14. On 1 November 2004 the applicant appealed.

15. On 11 May 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the administrative court’s decision not to take the applicant’s request for rectification into account finding that the request had been properly submitted. Yet, the Supreme Court dismissed the request upon an examination of merits holding that there was no plausible ground requiring rectification.

16. On 28 August 2006 the applicant was notified of the decision of 11 May 2006.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTIO