SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9564/13
FATİH PRES SAN. VE TİC. LTD. ŞTİ.
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
András Sajó, President,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 December 2012,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Fatih Pres Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi, is a company that was set up in Turkey in 1990. The applicant company was represented before the Court by Mr Ӧ. Karahan, a lawyer practising in Ankara.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 1 February 2008 the applicant company brought proceedings against a third party, claiming compensation with regard to a contract between an affiliate company, for which it was the guarantor, and the third party.
4. During the compensation proceedings, the applicant company requested the amendment (ıslah) of the amount it had initially claimed. It also requested legal aid to cover the court fees.
5. The Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction rejected the applicant company’s request for legal aid and maintained that it was to pay 108,496 Turkish liras (TRY)[1] in court fees for the new claim[2].
6. As the applicant company failed to pay the required fees, the Civil Court went on to examine the case as it stood before the amendment request.
7. On 11 February 2010 the court dismissed the case, finding that it was substantially the same as another case brought by the affiliate company in 2005, which had been examined and dismissed by the Ankara Commercial Court.
8. The applicant company did not file an appeal against that judgment.
COMPLAINTS
9. The applicant company alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that its right of access to court had been violated by the imposition of excessive court fees in that the case brought by it had been dismissed on account of its inability to pay those fees.
THE LAW
10. The Court observes first of all that the applicant company did not file an appeal against the judgment of the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. However, it will not assess whether the applicant company can be considered to have exhausted domestic remedies as in any event the application is inadmissible on the following grounds.
11. The Court reiterates that it has already examined grievances with regard to domestic courts’ refusal of legal aid and has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the ground, inter alia, that the legal aid system in Turkey failed to offer individuals substantial guarantees to protect them from arbitrariness (see Bakan v. Turkey, no. 50939/99, §§ 74-78, 12 June 2007; Mehmet and Suna Yiğit v. Turkey, no. 52658/99, §§ 33-39, 17 July 2007; Eyüp Kaya v. Turkey, no. 17582/04, §§ 22-26, 23 September 2008; and Kaba v. Turkey, no. 1236/05, §§ 19-25, 1 March 2011).
12. However, it notes that the present case does not raise a similar issue, as notwithstanding the change in the applicant company’s claim and the high court fees imposed on it as a result, the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction examined the case as it stood and held that it was substantially the same as another case brought by the affiliate company.
13. Accordingly, the domestic court did not take into account the applicant company’s failure to pay the required fees for its new claim and dismissed the case on another procedural ground.
14. The Court concludes therefore that the high amount of court fees imposed on the applicant company for its new claim did not hinder its right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as it had no impact on the domestic court’s decision.
15. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stanley Naismith András Sajó
RegistrarPresident
[1]. Approximately 40,000 euros at the material time
[2]. TRY 8,036,758 - approximately 4,000,000 euros at the time
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy