CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2019

.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 15 January 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 70306/10 Muhsine Rengin TIĞRAK against Turkey lodged on 2 November 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant as a result of a rectification of a material error proceedings ( maddi hatanın düzeltilmesi ) before the Court of Cassation. The applicant alleges that the rectification of a material error proceedings in question were in fact an appeal in disguise and that the other party in the proceedings obtained a rehearing of the case contrary to the provisions of the Labour Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. The case raises issues concerning respect for res judicata and the principle of legal certainty similar to those in Ryabykh v. Russia , no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003 ‑ IX. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the quashing of the final judgment in her favour by way of rectification of error proceedings (see, among many authories, Ryabykh v. Russia , cited above)? In that connection was the quashing of the final judgment in the applicant’s case justified by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as correction of fundamental defects or miscarriage of justice (see Brumărescu v.   Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999‑VII, and Protsenko v.   Russia , no. 13151/04, 31 July 2008 and COMPCAR, s.r.o. v. Slovakia , no.   25132/13, 9 June 2015)?   2.     Did the quashing of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour constitute an interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of the possession in the form of the judgment debt? If so, was such interference justified in terms of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia , no. 72493/10, 9 June 2015)?