CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 mai 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .s8D893B61 { width:152.77pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 6228/18 Zekai BİLGİN against Turkey and 53 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 May 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Egidijus Kūris, President,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: The applications against Turkey lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; The decision to give notice of the application to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice; Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applications concern the withdrawal of the applicants’ licences to operate bus lines. The facts and complaints are very similar to those in the case of Temizişler Madeni Yağ Sanayi Ticaret Limited Şirketi v. Turkey , ((dec.) no.   44159/18, 12   October 2021). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 2.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 3.     The applicants complain of an infringement of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 on account of the withdrawal of their licenses to operate bus lines. They also allege that the domestic court decisions lacked sufficient reasoning and that that they were unable to participate in the court proceedings in violation of their right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. 4.     The Court notes that in the Temizişler Madeni Yağ Sanayi Ticaret Limited Şirketi decision (cited above) , it found that the applicant company could not be unaware of the fact that it did not have a right to renewal beyond the ten-year period and that there was a clear risk that the contract would expire at the end of the ten years’ period foreseen in the law, regardless of the intentions of the municipal authorities. The Court further considered that the illegal nature of a renewal beyond this period was sufficiently clear that, despite the municipality’s conduct, the withdrawal of the license and the lack of compensation could not be considered to have placed an individual excessive burden on the applicant. Accordingly, the Court ruled that neither the non-renewal nor the absence of compensation upset the fair balance which must exist between the various interests at stake under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1. 5.     As to the other complaints, having regard to the information in its possession and in so far as it had jurisdiction to rule on the allegations made, the Court found no appearance of a violation. 6.     Turning to the circumstances of the present cases and having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as regards these applications. 7.     It follows that these applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 June 2022.     Hasan Bakırcı   Egidijus Kūris   Registrar   President   Appendix     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 6228/18 Bilgin v. Turkey 20/12/2017 Zekai BİLGİN 1949 Samsun Turkish Muhammed Oğulcan EKİZ 2. 6231/18 Ekiz v. Turkey 20/12/2017 Nurhan EKİZ 1969 Samsun Turkish Muhammed Oğulcan EKİZ 3. 6235/18 Şentürk v. Turkey 18/12/2017 İsrafil ŞENTÜRK 1960 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 4. 6242/18 Uygun v. Turkey 18/12/2017 Zafer UYGUN 1963 SAMSUN Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 5. 6245/18 Duran v. Turkey 18/12/2017 Hasan DURAN 1969 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 6. 6252/18 Topçu v. Turkey 18/12/2017 Orhan TOPÇU 1967 SAMSUN Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 7. 6257/18 Hünerli v. Turkey 18/12/2017 Sadık HÜNERLİ 1948 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 8. 6259/18 Aral Limited Company v.   Turkey 18/12/2017 ARAL GIDA TEMİZLİK MADDELERİ İNŞAAT TAAHHÜT TURİZM NAKLİYAT SAN. TİC. LTD. ŞTİ. Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 9. 6262/18 Bal v. Turkey 18/12/2017 İbrahim BAL 1956 SAMSUN Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 10. 6266/18 Bozyel v. Turkey 18/12/2017 Ekrem BOZYEL 1959 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 11. 6268/18 Kara v. Turkey 18/12/2017 Yasin KARA 1993 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 12. 6273/18 Bektaş v. Turkey 18/12/2017 Ali BEKTAŞ 1976 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 13. 6276/18 Bektaş v. Turkey 20/12/2017 Hasan BEKTAŞ 1970 SAMSUN Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 14. 6278/18 Erdoğan v. Turkey 18/12/2017 Şefik ERDOĞAN 1982 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 15. 6280/18 Erdoğan v. Turkey 18/12/2017 Şaban ERDOĞAN 1974 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 16. 6286/18 Hacıoğlu v. Turkey 18/12/2017 Necati HACIOĞLU 1963 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 17. 6294/18 Samsun Bus Drivers Mutual Assistance and Solidarity Association v. Turkey 18/12/2017 SAMSUN ÖZEL HALK OTOBÜSÇÜLERİ YARDIMLAŞMA VE DAYANIŞMA DERNEĞİ Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 18. 12037/18 Sercan v. Turkey 12/02/2018 Bayram SERCAN 1973 İstanbul Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 19. 20043/18 Küçükaslan v. Turkey 18/04/2018 Aşur KÜÇÜKASLAN 1964 Samsun Turkish Yusuf Ziya ÇİMEN 20. 23111/18 Akın v. Turkey 02/05/2018 Sezayi AKIN 1967 Samsun Turkish Muhammed Oğulcan EKİZ 21. 25081/18 Sahin v. Turkey 09/05/2018 Sezai ŞAHİN 1967 Samsun Turkish Yusuf Ziya ÇİMEN 22. 25086/18 Doğru v. Turkey 09/05/2018 Nuray DOĞRU 1976 Samsun Turkish Yusuf Ziya ÇİMEN 23. 26890/18 Ateş Limited Company v. Turkey 31/05/2018 ATEŞ OTO NAKLİYAT GIDA VE AV MALZEMELERİ PAZARLAMA TİC. LTD. ŞTİ. Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 24. 26944/18 Tiryaki v. Turkey 31/05/2018 Yunus TİRYAKİ 1972 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 25. 26996/18 Kabakçıoğlu Limited Company v. Turkey 31/05/2018 KABAKÇIOĞLU TURİZM TAŞIMACILIK VE İNŞAAT DAYANIKLI TÜKETİM MAL. SAN. VE TİC. LTD.ŞTİ Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 26. 33552/18 Savaş v. Turkey 02/07/2018 İlyas SAVAŞ 1972 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 27. 34411/18 Bilgin v. Turkey 23/05/2018 Zekai BİLGİN 1949 Samsun Turkish Muhammed Oğulcan EKİZ 28. 34414/18 Duran v. Turkey 13/04/2018 Hasan DURAN 1969 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 29. 34415/18 Ekiz v. Turkey 23/05/2018 Nurhan EKİZ 1969 Samsun Turkish Muhammed Oğulcan EKİZ 30. 34417/18 Hacıoğlu v. Turkey 31/05/2018 Necati HACIOĞLU 1963 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 31. 34420/18 Bozyel v. Turkey 31/05/2018 Ekrem BOZYEL 1959 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 32. 34422/18 Erdoğan v. Turkey 28/05/2018 Şaban ERDOĞAN 1974 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 33. 34423/18 Aral Limited Company v. Turkey 02/07/2018 ARAL GIDA TEMİİZLİK MADDELERİ İNŞAAT TAAHHÜT TURİZM NAKLİYAT SAN. TİC. LTD. ŞTİ. Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DILEKİ 34. 34425/18 Mertdağ Limited Company v. Turkey 02/07/2018 MERTDAĞ GIDA MEŞRUBAT PAZARLAMA NAKLİYAT İNŞAAT TİCARET LLTD. ŞTİ. Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 35. 34428/18 Kara v. Turkey 02/07/2018 Yasin KARA 1993 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 36. 39331/18 Bengü v. Turkey 07/08/2018 Arif BENGÜ 1954 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 37. 43704/18 Selçi v. Turkey 13/09/2018 Faik SELÇİ 1973 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 38. 48424/18 Hünerli v. Turkey 19/09/2018 Sadık HÜNERLİ 1948 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 39. 48667/18 Şentürk v. Turkey 03/10/2018 İsrafil ŞENTÜRK 1960 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 40. 48668/18 Erdoğan v. Turkey 03/10/2018 Şefik ERDOĞAN 1982 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 41. 49267/18 Sesli v. Turkey 03/10/2018 Berati SESLİ 1977 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 42. 2209/19 Uğraş v. Turkey 06/12/2018 Cengiz UĞRAŞ 1975 Samsun Turkish Yusuf Ziya ÇİMEN 43. 2308/19 Altunkaya v. Turkey 06/11/2018 Nevzat ALTUNKAYA 1957 Artvin Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 44. 2316/19 Çelikel v. Turkey 06/11/2018 Şükrü ÇELİKEL 1955 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 45. 4943/19 Akın v. Turkey 07/12/2018 Sezayi AKIN 1967 Samsun Turkish Muhammed Oğulcan EKİZ 46. 4945/19 Tiryaki v. Turkey 07/12/2018 Yunus TİRYAKİ 1972 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 47. 4947/19 Şahin v. Turkey 06/12/2018 Sezai ŞAHİN 1967 Samsun Turkish Yusuf Ziya ÇİMEN 48. 4949/19 Doğru v. Turkey 06/12/2018 Nuray DOĞRU 1976 Samsun Turkish Yusuf Ziya ÇİMEN 49. 16738/19 Sandıkçı v. Turkey 11/03/2019 Hakan SANDIKÇI 1972 Samsun Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 50. 20682/19 Bal v. Turkey 11/03/2019 İbrahim BAL 1956 SAMSUN Turkish Davut Emre DİLEK 51. 30213/19 Odabaşoğlu v. Turkey 16/05/2019 Şeref ODABAŞOĞLU 1965 Samsun Turkish Yusuf Ziya ÇİMEN 52. 30526/19 Ağca v. Turkey 24/05/2019 Kemalettin AĞCA 1964 Samsun Turkish Yusuf Ziya ÇİMEN 53. 34169/19 Kartal v. Turkey 12/06/2019 Samet KARTAL 1990 Samsun Turkish Yusuf Ziya ÇİMEN 54. 35698/19 Çekiç v. Turkey 21/06/2019 Feridun ÇEKİÇ 1980 Amasya Turkish Yusuf Ziya ÇİMEN