CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 juin 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 4 July 2022   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 27814/17 and 27818/17 SARIPINAR GIDA SANAYİ VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. against Turkey and Özay TÜRKMEN against Turkey lodged on 25 February 2017 and 28 February 2017 respectively communicated on 14 June 2022 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applications concern the alleged unfairness of proceedings whereby the applicants, owners of liquor stores, sought to challenge fines imposed on them for selling alcohol outside the authorised selling hours (approximately 9,458   Euros (EUR) for the first applicant and EUR   15,152 for the second applicant at the material time) on the basis of reports compiled by the police. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, both applicants complain of the domestic courts’ failure to hold a hearing; collect and examine any evidence; take evidence from them in person and to deliver a reasoned judgment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the administrative fines fall within the ambit of the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention? In the affirmative, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Sancaklı v.   Turkey , no.   1385/07, §§ 28-31, 15 May 2018, and Özmurat İnşaat Elektrik Nakliyat Temizlik San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. v. Turkey , no. 48657/06, §§   22 ‑ 26, 28   November 2017)? In particular, could the applicants effectively challenge the fines imposed on them before tribunals that offered the guarantees of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, including, in particular, the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings and the right to a reasoned judgment? 2.     Has there been a public hearing in the present case, as required by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicants’ case, including but not limited to, documentary evidence against the applicants, and the written submissions of the applicants throughout the proceedings. List of applications   No. Application no. Case name Applicant Nationality Represented by 1. 27814/17 Sarıpınar Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. v.   Turkey SARIPINAR GIDA SANAYİ VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. Turkish Hikmet TEPE 2. 27818/17 Türkmen v. Turkey Özay TÜRKMEN Turkish Hikmet TEPE