CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 septembre 2020

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF114237 { width:19.02pt; display:inline-block } .sEC241A8 { width:159.87pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 62129/10 Cemil KÖSE against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8   September 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Egidijus Kūris, President,   Ivana Jelić,   Darian Pavli, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 September 2010, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Cemil Köse, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1978 and lives in İstanbul. He was represented before the Court by Ms   F.   Erdoğan, a lawyer practising in İstanbul. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicant and his colleague, Mr H.S., had been working as security guards in a private company. Following a burglary, they were both dismissed. Subsequently, both the applicant and Mr H.S. initiated separate proceedings before the Kadıköy Labour Court, asking for reinstatement due to unlawful termination of their respective work contract. On 9 September 2008 the Kadıköy Labour Court dismissed both cases, based on the same grounds and using identical wording in both judgments. 5.     On 12 October 2009 the 9 th Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Kadıköy Labour Court in respect of the applicant’s case and dismissed his appeal request. This decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 11 March 2010. 6.     In the meantime, on 9 November 2009 the same Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Kadıköy Labour Court in respect of the other security guard, Mr H.S., holding that an expert report should have been obtained to determine the circumstances of the burglary. The case against Mr H.S. was accordingly remitted before the Kadıköy Labour Court and upon receipt of an expert report, it was dismissed once again on 25 June 2010. On 25 October 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the case against Mr H.S. COMPLAINT 7.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing due to the contradictory decisions delivered by the Court of Cassation. THE LAW 8.     The Government asked the Court to dismiss the case due to non ‑ compliance with the six-month time-limit and to this effect they submitted to the Court a copy of the notification certificate which indicated that the final decision of the Court of Cassation was notified on the applicant’s lawyer on 11 March 2010. 9.     The applicant did not comment on this objection. 10.   The Court recalls that according to its settled case-law, the six-month time-limit starts to run on the day following the public pronouncement of the final decision or, in cases where a decision is not pronounced publicly, on the day following the date on which the final decision is served on the applicant or his representative, and expires six calendar months later, irrespective of the actual length of those months (see, Sabri Güneş v.   Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, § 44, 29 June 2012). 11.     The Court observes that in the instant case the final decision of the Court of Cassation dated 12 October 2009 was served on the applicant’s representative on 11 March 2010. The time-limit laid down by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention therefore started to run on the following day, 12 March, however the application was lodged on 14 September 2010, that is, after the expiry of the above-mentioned time-limit (see, Sabri Güneş , cited above, § 60). 12.     Consequently, the Court concludes that the application was lodged more than six months after the service on the applicant of the final domestic decision. 13.     It follows that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 1 October 2020.   Hasan Bakırcı   Egidijus Kūris   Deputy Registrar   President