Published on 18 December 2023
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 13455/23
Muzaffer YALÇIN
against Türkiye
lodged on 8 March 2023
communicated on 27 November 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s inability to seize his former employing company’s assets for the enforcement of a final judgment regarding compensation for a workplace accident.
The control of the company was transferred to the authorities and a law prohibiting any seizure of its assets was adopted, irrespective of the company’s financial status.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment in question. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he further complains that he did not have an effective remedy for his complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the applicant’s right of access to court protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention violated as a result of the impossibility to seize the assets of his employer to enforce a court judgment (Çakır and Others v. Turkey, no. 25747/09, §§ 15-26, 4 June 2013; Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 56-57, ECHR 2006-XIV; Lunari v. Italy, no. 21463/93, §§ 42 and 45, 11 January 2001; and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-V)?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy