CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 juin 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 12 July 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19085/18 Ferat ÇAĞIL against Turkey lodged on 17 April 2018 communicated on 24 June 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged denial of the right of access to a court by the applicant, in breach of Article   6 of the Convention, owing to his inability to lodge an appeal with the Regional Appeal Court against his conviction for insult, issuing threats, and inflicting bodily harm. The Edremit Criminal Court of First Instance convicted the applicant for insult, issuing threats, and inflicting bodily harm and imposed on him three different judicial fines, which were all below the statutory threshold provided for appeals in Article 272 § 3 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a result, no appeal laid against the decision of the trial court.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant’s inability to lodge an appeal against the judgment of the Edremit Criminal Court of First Instance constitute a disproportionate interference with his right of access to a court, in violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention? (see, mutatis mutandis , Bayar and Gürbüz v.   Turkey , no.   37569/06 , §§ 37-49, 27 November 2012)