CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s3E3166BC { width:200.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 28248/06 Ebru ŞİMŞEK against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10   April 2018 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President ,   Valeriu Griţco,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 June 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Ms Ebru Şimşek, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Ms   R.   Aydınoğlu and Ms N. Kuğuoğlu, lawyers practising in Istanbul. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 5 March 2004 the applicant brought a civil action for compensation against Y.C. before the Şişli Civil Court of First Instance on the ground that some of his remarks constituted an attack on her personal rights. She claimed 1,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) [1] (approximately 600   euros (EUR) on the basis of the exchange rate at the time) in compensation. 4.     On 21 July 2004 Law no. 5219, according to which the monetary jurisdiction limits imposed on appeals and rectification requests were increased, entered into force. 5.     On 16 December 2004 the Şişli Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. 6.     On 20 May 2005 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal on the ground that the amount in question did not reach the required threshold (TRL 1,000,000,000 – approximately EUR 600) for lodging an appeal with it under the aforementioned amended legislation. 7.     On 24 October 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s rectification request, as the amount in dispute did not reach the required threshold (TRL 6,000,000,000 – approximately EUR 3,600) for requesting the rectification of a decision pursuant to the aforementioned law. This decision was notified to the applicant on 18 January 2006. COMPLAINT 8.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the application to her case of the new legislation concerning an increase in the monetary jurisdiction limits imposed on appeals and rectification requests had violated her right of access to court. THE LAW 9.     The Court recalls that it has already examined a similar complaint and found it manifestly ill-founded in the case of Canbaz v. Turkey ((dec.), no.   3564/06, 13 September 2011). It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 10.     The Court further notes that the applicant’s complaints had been examined by the Şişli Civil Court of First Instance and that the fairness of the proceedings in that court was not in any way called into question before the Court. 11.     It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 17 May 2018.   Hasan Bakırcı   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President 1.     Equivalent of 1,000 TRY. On 1 January 2005 the Turkish Lira (TRY) entered into circulation, replacing the former Turkish Lira (TRL). 1 TRY = TRL 1,000,000.