CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s172EF8F1 { width:208.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 27374/11 BAKIRÇAY MURAT PETROL TURIZM İNŞAATÇILIK SAN. VE TIC. LTD. ŞTI. against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19   June 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Ledi Bianku, President,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy SectionRegistrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 February 2011, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant is a construction company, a gas station, and has its headquarters in İzmir. It was represented before the Court by Mr S. Cengiz, a lawyer practising in İzmir. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     Upon an inspection, on 17 December 2007 an administrative fine was imposed on the applicant company as it did not have the requisite operating license. 5.     On 6 February 2008 the applicant company initiated administrative proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the fine. 6.     On 29 September 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case. 7.     During the proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court submitted her written opinion on the merits of the case. Without raising any substantial issue regarding the merits of the case, she invited the court to uphold the judgment of the administrative court. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant. 8.     On 2 December 2010 the Plenary Assembly of Administrative Chambers of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of 29   September 2009. B.     Relevant domestic law 9.     A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Kılıç and others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 33162/10, §§   10-13, 3   December 2013). COMPLAINTS 10.     The applicant company complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion in the administrative proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated its right to an adversarial and fair hearing. Under the same heading, the applicant company alleged that the proceedings had not been fair. 11.     Invoking Article 7 of the Convention, the applicant company complained that it had been sanctioned as a result of an act which did not constitute a criminal offence. THE LAW A.     Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 12.     The applicant company complained that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion during the administrative proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated its right to an adversarial and fair hearing. In this respect, it relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 13.     The Court notes that it has already examined the same issue in the case of Kılıç and others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 33162/10, §§   19 ‑ 23, 3   December 2013) and considered that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage. Accordingly, it has declared this complaint inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention. 14.     Having in particular regard to the content of the written opinion filed by the Chief Public Prosecutor in the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court, the Court finds no particular reasons in the present application which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned case. 15.     In the light of the foregoing, this complaint is inadmissible and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention. B.     Other alleged violations of the Convention 16.     The applicant company further complained under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. 17.     In the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that these submissions by the applicant company do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its protocols. It follows that these complaints must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to 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 12 July 2018.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar   President