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 } .s14C5EDA0 { font-family:Arial; color:#374151 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 18 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 53105/22 Saim TOPALOĞLU against Türkiye lodged on 4 November 2022 communicated on 27 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the rejection of the applicant’s request for legal aid by which he sought the exemption from litigation costs and expenses in the amount equivalent to 409 euros (EUR) at the time of the events in a civil dispute concerning one of his properties. The courts considered that the applicant had failed to provide documentation regarding his financial situation. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts breached his right of access to a court by refusing his legal aid request without giving sufficient reasons. He had informed the courts that he was imprisoned and did not have enough income to cover the court fees in question. Despite this, the courts imposed court fees on him as a condition for bringing a claim before the courts. In that connection, the applicant argues that his four-year imprisonment has left him reliant solely on his retirement pension, which was in the amount equivalent to EUR 163 at the time of the events, to cover his basic needs. Aside from his pension, he possessed no additional sources of income from employment or property. He was the owner of two properties, both subject to allegedly unlawful occupation by the State, prompting separate legal actions. His legal aid requests were approved in a distinct case involving his other property, as well as in a prior application submitted to the Constitutional Court.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Given the amount of court fees which the applicant was required to pay in order to lodge his case before the civil courts, was his right of “access to a court”, as secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, respected (see, among many others, Kreuz v. Poland , no. 28249/95, §§   52-60, ECHR   2001-VI)?   In particular, did the domestic courts act in accordance with that right when evaluating the applicant’s submissions pertaining to his request for legal aid (see Kreuz , cited above, §§ 64-66, and Nalbant and Others v.   Turkey , no. 59914/16, § 44, 3 May 2022) and secure a proper balance between, on the one hand, the interest of the State in collecting court fees for dealing with claims and, on the other hand, the interest of the applicant in vindicating his claim through the courts ( see Jedamski and Jedamska v.   Poland , no. 73547/01, § 66, 26 July 2005)?   2.     Was the reasoning of the domestic courts in rejecting the applicant’s request for legal aid sufficient to comply with the obligation of the courts under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to give reasons for their judgments (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§   83-84, 11   July 2017)?