THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 39327/02
by İbrahim Bülent METE
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 June 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrK. Traja,
MrsA. Gyulumyan, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 September 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr İbrahim Bülent Mete, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 May 1990 the Bakirköy District Governor has granted the applicant a licence to sell alcohol in his restaurant.
On an unspecified date, the quarter of Güngören, where the applicant’s restaurant was, became a separated district. On 13 October 1997 the Güngören District Governor revoked the applicant’s licence on the grounds that the applicant’s restaurant was outside of the designated area for the restaurants to serve alcohol.
On 27 October 1997 this decision was notified to the applicant and he was debarred from running the restaurant.
On 3 November 1997 the applicant brought an action before the Istanbul Administrative Court for the annulment of the decision of the revocation of his licence.
On 11 June 1998 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.
On 15 February 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal.
The applicant requested rectification of the decision.
On 24 June 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification.
On 15 August 2002 the applicant was notified of the Supreme Administrative Court’s final decision.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness and the length of the administrative proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant alleges that the length of the administrative proceedings exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial was breached as the domestic courts unfairly dismissed his request.
The Court recalls that it is not called upon to examine the outcome of the proceedings or the interpretation of domestic law unless there is arbitrariness.
The Court observes that, in the present case, the Istanbul Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request, holding that the applicant could not claim to have gained vested rights as the decision to grant him a licence to sell alcohol, per se, was not compatible with the law in the first place.
The Court finds no evidence or basis on which to conclude that the domestic courts, in establishing the facts or interpreting the domestic law, acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the administrative proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy