CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 novembre 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 22 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38599/10 EKSİM INTERNATIONAL TRADE JSC against Turkey lodged on 7 June 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant company’s right of access to court in the context of taxation proceedings. The applicant company initiated proceedings after having followed the procedure described in the customs authorities’ payment notice and challenged the customs tax and penalty imposed on it. The case was dismissed by the Tax Court on the grounds that the applicant company had failed to comply with the required time-limit as he must have brought the case without having recourse to the remedies pointed out by the customs authorities in the official notice. The applicant company complains of a violation of its rights under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court’s General Assembly in cases raising similar issues (decisions of 17   April 1997, E: 1997/214, K: 1998/89, and 12 March 1999, E:   1998/138, K:   1999/155) and taking into account that the applicant company brought its case following the procedural steps pointed out by the administrative authorities, was the Hatay Tax Court’s dismissal of its case for having been lodged out of time so formalistic as to disproportionately restrict its right of access to court (see , mutatis mutandis , de Geouffre de la Pradelle v.   France , no.   12964/87, 16 December 1992, and Paroutsas and Others v.   Greece , no.   34639/09, 2 March 2017)? Were the relevant rules in the present case sufficiently foreseeable so as to provide the applicant company with a coherent system based on a clear, practical and effective opportunity to assert its claims against the State (see, mutatis mutandis , Vasilyev and Kovtun v. Russia , no. 13703/04, §   53, 13   December 2011)?