CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 novembre 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 19 November 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39365/18 Mümün AĞCAKAYA against Turkey lodged on 6 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged lack of access to a court in proceedings whereby he challenged the administrative fine (the amount of which was approximately 290 euros) allegedly imposed on him for acting in breach of Law no. 2860 on collection of aid. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not have the opportunity to challenge the administrative fine before the domestic courts as the domestic courts dismissed his case on the ground that he had had no standing to lodge an objection given that the fine had been imposed on the association and not on him. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Diyarbakır Magistrates’ Court’s ( Sulh Ceza Hakimliği ) decision of 21 February 2017 dismissing the applicant’s objection: (a)     Has the applicant suffered a “significant disadvantage” within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention in the exercise of his right of access to a court (see   Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no.   36659/04, 1 June 2010; see also Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no.   25551/05, ECHR 2010-V; Ladygin v. Russia (dec.), no. 35365/05, 30 August 2011)? (b)     Does respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits (see Zwinkels v. the Netherlands   (dec.), no. 16593/10, § 28, 9   October 2012)? (c)     Has the case been “duly considered by a domestic tribunal” (see Korolev (dec.), cited above)?   2.     Was the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 §   1 infringed by the domestic court’s dismissal of his case on the ground that he had had no standing to lodge an objection given that the fine had been imposed on the association and not on him?