CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 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 } Published on 18 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no.   13455/23 Muzaffer YALÇIN against Türkiye lodged on 8 March 2023 communicated on 27 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s inability to seize his former employing company’s assets for the enforcement of a final judgment regarding compensation for a workplace accident. The control of the company was transferred to the authorities and a law prohibiting any seizure of its assets was adopted, irrespective of the company’s financial status. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment in question. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he further complains that he did not have an effective remedy for his complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicant’s right of access to court protected under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention violated as a result of the impossibility to seize the assets of his employer to enforce a court judgment ( Çakır and Others v. Turkey , no. 25747/09, §§ 15-26, 4   June 2013; Apostol v. Georgia , no. 40765/02, §§ 56-57, ECHR 2006-XIV; Lunari v.   Italy , no. 21463/93, §§ 42 and 45, 11   January 2001; and Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 74, ECHR   1999-V)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?