CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Communicated on 11 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 22803/19 Ahmet Mücahit SELÇUK against Turkey lodged on 23 April 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the administrative courts’ rejection of the applicant’s civil claim without an examination on the merits. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that by rejecting his case as belated the domestic courts deprived him of access to a court. He submits under Article 14 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ approach in his case fell in stark contrast with the existing case-law in the interpretation of time-limits for bringing an administrative action, and was therefore unforeseeable in this regard. The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that due to the manner of rejection of his individual application with the Constitutional Court, he was denied an effective domestic remedy in connection with the original proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the approach of the domestic courts in the interpretation of time-limits for bringing an administrative action? 2.     Is the reasoning given by the Constitutional Court in dismissing the applicant’s individual application concerning his access to court complaint vis-a-vis the original proceedings sufficient for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention? The parties are requested to comment on the interpretation and application of sections 7 and 11 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.