CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 12 October 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 56027/08 YENİ GÜNEŞLİ ÇELİKLER PETROL NAKLİYAT GIDA TİCARET VE SANAYİ LİMİTED ŞİRKETİ against Turkey lodged on 7 November 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an administrative fine served on the applicant company by the State administration indicating that judicial review against this fine could be sought before a Magistrate’s Court within fifteen days of the serving of notice. When the applicant challenged the fine before the Magistrate’s Court on the fifteenth day, that court rejected the applicant company’s application, holding that administrative courts held jurisdiction over the dispute. The administrative court to which the applicant applied dismissed the applicant’s claim for being out of time, holding that when the applicant had first attempted to challenge the order before the Magistrate Court, he had not lodged his claim within seven days as was required under the applicable law. Relying on Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, the applicant company complains that its right of access to court was infringed on account of the administrative court’s dismissal of its claims for being lodged out of time.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to Court within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention on account of the administrative court’s dismissal of its claim for being lodged out of time? In particular was the administrative court’s approach in interpreting the procedural rules relating to time-limits excessively formalistic given the fact that the applicant had relied on the information contained in the official notice?