SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27814/17
SARIPINAR GIDA SANAYİ VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ.
against Türkiye
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3 February 2026 as a Committee composed of:
Jovan Ilievski, President,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
Stéphane Pisani, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 27814/17) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 25 February 2017 by a private company, Sarıpınar Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. (“the applicant company”), which was registered in Ankara, and was represented by Mr H. Tepe, a lawyer practising in Ankara;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant company’s alleged inability to effectively challenge the fines imposed on it, and the absence of an oral hearing in the judicial review of the fine to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the Government’s observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the alleged unfairness of proceedings whereby the applicant company, owner of a liquor store, sought to challenge a fine, imposed on it under section 7 of Law no. 4250 on Monopoly of Alcohol and Alcoholic Beverages on the basis of police reports, for selling alcohol outside the permitted selling hours. In particular, the application pertains to the domestic courts’ alleged failure to hold a public hearing in reviewing the fine and the applicant company’s alleged inability to effectively challenge it.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
2. The Government argued that neither the civil nor the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention were applicable to the proceedings in which the fine imposed on the applicant company had been reviewed by the Ankara Magistrate’s Courts. On that basis, the Government invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.
3. The applicant company failed to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application within the time-limit allotted to it.
4. The Court does not consider it necessary to rule on the preliminary objection raised by the Government, as the application is, in any event, inadmissible on the following grounds.
5. The general principles concerning the right to an oral and public hearing guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 can be found in Jussila v. Finland ([GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 40-45, ECHR 2006–XIII), Özmurat İnşaat Elektrik Nakliyat Temizlik San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. (cited above, §§ 27‑30), Suhadolc v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011), and Flisar v. Slovenia (no. 3127/09, §§ 33-35, 29 September 2011). In particular, the Court accepted that it may be justified dispensing with an oral hearing also in the criminal sphere where the issues to be dealt with do not raise any question of fact or law which could not be adequately resolved on the basis of the case file. An oral hearing may not be required where there are no issues of credibility or contested facts which necessitate an oral presentation of evidence or cross‑examination of witnesses and where the accused was given an adequate opportunity to put forward his case in writing and to challenge the evidence against him (ibid.).
6. The Court notes that it is not disputed between the parties that certain alcoholic beverages had been sold from the applicant company’s store during the prohibited hours. In its objection before the domestic courts, the applicant company asserted, among other points, that on the day the police report in issue had been drawn up, the liquor store had been temporarily entrusted to F.S., who was not a registered employee, and that the sale of the alcoholic beverages in question had occurred during this brief period when F.S. had been operating the cash register. The applicant company had requested an oral hearing in order to clarify the facts of the case.
7. In its preliminary report (tensip zapti), the Ankara Sixth Magistrates’ Court held that there had been no need to take the parties’ submissions at an oral hearing, using its discretionary power conferred by section 28(4) of the Misdemeanours Act (Law no. 5326). The Court observes that what the applicant company sought before the domestic courts was the exoneration of its responsibility for the actions of a temporary and unregistered worker, a matter not in dispute on factual grounds. In the absence of a factual dispute and any other argument by the applicant company demonstrating the necessity of an oral hearing, the Court finds force in the Government’s argument that the domestic court was able to adequately resolve the case on the basis of the case file and therefore did not need to hold an oral hearing (compare also Suhadolc v. Slovenia, no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011). Lastly, the Court does not discern any other element enabling it to conclude that the applicant company was deprived of the possibility of effectively challenging the fine imposed on it.
8. It follows that the application must be rejected as manifestly ill‑founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 March 2026.
Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski
Deputy Registrar President