CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 18 May 2020 Published on 8 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 66847/16 Ayfer TOPRAK KARAVAN and Others against Turkey lodged on 2 November 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the transfer of Toprakbank (hereinafter “the Bank”), a bank constituted under the laws of Turkey, to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (hereinafter “the Fund”) by a decision of the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (hereinafter “the Agency”). A minority shareholder of the Bank brought proceedings against the Agency, requesting annulment of the Fund’s decision. The applicants became party to the proceedings when they acquired the shares of this shareholder. The administrative courts dismissed the case considering that the transfer of the Bank to the Fund was in conformity with the applicable law. The applicants thereafter made an individual application before the Constitutional Court (hereinafter “the TCC”), complaining about a violation of their property rights. In the context of the individual application proceedings, the TCC requested observations from the Ministry of Justice which were then communicated to the applicants. The TCC also requested additional information from the Agency, which had been a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court, and from the Fund. It appears that the information obtained from those entities was not communicated to the applicants. On 23   March 2016 the TCC found that there had been no violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In its decision, the TCC relied on, among others, the information submitted by the Agency, a study report prepared by the Fund and a report by the Audit Court. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms were not respected in the proceedings before the TCC owing to the fact that they had not been invited to make comments on the written observations submitted by the Agency and the Fund as well as the Audit Court’s report, all of which were mentioned by the TCC in its decision. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: -     Was the principle of equality of arms respected in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, as regards the failure to provide the applicants with a copy of the observations filed by the Agency and the Fund (see, Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 96 ECHR 2009, Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR 2005 ‑ V)? -     Was the principle of adversarial proceedings respected in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, with regard to the lack of presentation to or discussion by the applicants of the reports and studies referred to by the Constitutional Court in its decision ( Krčmář and Others v.   the Czech Republic , no. 35376/97, §§ 41-44, 3 March 2000)?