CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 2023

.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 } Published on 11 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 33439/22 Demet OĞUZ against Türkiye lodged on 3 June 2022 communicated on 21 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an administrative court’s rejection as belated of the applicant’s administrative-law action for damages in respect of a work accident during her shift as a nurse. The applicant complains under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention that she was deprived of her right to a fair trial and effective access to a court on account of the administrative court’s rejection of her case as being out of time without giving sufficient reasons when establishing the dies a quo for the calculation of the relevant time-limit. In that connection the applicant argues that despite there being several medical reports following her work accident, the administrative court considered the earliest report of 26   September 2016, which had been drafted during her recovery period and moreover had not set out the extent of her permanent disability, as the dies a quo , rather than the final report of 9 August 2018.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, is the reasoning given by the domestic courts in dismissing the applicant’s case sufficient for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention so that the applicant had effective access to a court (compare Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §§   83-84, 11   July 2017; Tarvydas v. Lithuania , no.   36098/19, §§   47 and 52-53, 23   November 2021; Eşim v. Turkey , no. 59601/09, §§   18-27, 17   September 2013; and Kurşun v.   Turkey , no. 22677/10, §§ 93 and   99, 30   October 2018)?