CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 janvier 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s796BDE8F { width:14.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDBD23507 { width:28.62pt; display:inline-block } .sEA111250 { width:16.65pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 34542/97 by Bulent COLAK against Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) sitting on 26 January 1999 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   M. Pellonpää, President ,   Mr   J.A. Pastor Ridruejo,   Mr   L. Caflisch,   Mr   J. Makarczyk,   Mr   R. Türmen,   Mr   V. Butkevych,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova, Judges ,   with   Mr   V. Berger, Section Registrar ;     Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;     Having regard to the application introduced on 6 October 1995 by Bulent COLAK   against Turkey and registered on 16 January 1997 under file no. 34542/97;     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows:   THE FACTS     The applicant, born in 1955, is a Turkish citizen who is resident in İzmir. He is a driver.     The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     In early 1991 the applicant filed a petition with the İzmir Governor’s office for leave to participate in a public auction for 150 commercial taxi licence plates, which was to take place on 6 June 1991.     On 24 May 1991 the İzmir Security Directorate’s Traffic Commission rejected the applicant’s request on the ground that he did not meet the eligibility requirements for the auction.     On 13 June 1991 the Traffic Commission sent a letter to the applicant explaining that his request was rejected because he was earning his living not only as a driver but also as a cloth-seller, as indicated in the information in the registry of the Basmane Tax Office in İzmir. The Commission further explained that, under decree no. 86/10553, only those earning their living as drivers were eligible to take part in the auction.     On 14 June 1991 the applicant brought an action before the İzmir Administrative Court. He alleged that he was eligible for the auction because he worked as a driver and was a member of the İzmir Drivers’ and Automobilists’ Association. He also stated that he had stopped working as a cloth-seller long before the auction. He asked the court to set aside the Traffic Commission’s decision of 24 May 1991 and to order a stay of execution of the decisions taken at the auction.     On 20 January 1994 the İzmir Administrative Court set aside the Traffic Commission’s decision of 24 May 1991. It held that the applicant would be eligible for similar auctions in the future. The court rejected the applicant’s request for an order to stay the execution of the auction decisions.     On 10 March 1995 the applicant brought an action before the İzmir Administrative Court against the İzmir Governor’s office. He alleged that he had suffered a loss of three billion Turkish liras because he could not work as a taxicab driver as he was not admitted to the auction and could not buy a taxicab licence plate.     On 9 November 1995 the İzmir Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The court stated that even if the applicant had been admitted to the auction, he would not necessarily have succeeded in buying a taxicab licence plate. The court further considered that the applicant’s claim was based on assumption and that he had not suffered damage. It held that the applicant would be eligible for future auctions according to the Administrative Court’s decision of 20 January 1994.     On 17 January 1996 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court ( Conseil d’Etat ) against the judgment of 9 November 1995.     On 3 March 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.     COMPLAINT     The applicant complains that his right to a fair trial was breached as the national courts failed to award him compensation for the damage he suffered as a result of the arbitrary decision of the Traffic Commission. He does not invoke any of the Articles of the Convention or of the Protocols thereto.       THE LAW     The applicant complains that his right to a fair trial was breached as he was not awarded any compensation by the national courts.     The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint relates to civil proceedings and it should therefore be considered in the light of the general notion of a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     The Court recalls that under Article 19 of the Convention its sole task is to ensure observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties under the Convention. It is not competent to examine applications concerning errors of law or fact allegedly committed by the national authorities unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. The establishment of the facts and the interpretation and application of domestic law belong, in the first place, to the national authorities (cf., mutatis mutandis , Eur. Court HR, Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 45).     In the instant case, the Court notes that the applicant’s complaint concerns the refusal of the İzmir Administrative Court to award him compensation for damage allegedly sustained as a result of an unlawful administrative decision. The İzmir Administrative Court held that the applicant had not suffered damage and based his claim on the assumption that he would earn a certain amount of money had he been able to buy a taxicab licence plate at the auction. It also held that the applicant would be eligible to participate in future auctions.     The Court recalls that there is no right as such to an award of damages under Article 6 § 1. The issue is whether the applicant received a fair hearing on his claim to be entitled to compensation. The Court finds no evidence or basis on which to conclude that the İzmir Administrative Court, in evaluating the facts or interpreting the domestic law, acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. Therefore, there is no apperance of a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,     DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.           Vincent Berger             Matti Pellonpää     Registrar                  President