CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 2024

.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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 April 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26600/17 TÜRKOĞLU DEMİR SANAYİ VE TİC. LTD. ŞTİ. against Türkiye lodged on 6 February 2017 communicated on 25 March 2024 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the discontinuation of civil proceedings at the first-instance stage, following the failure of the applicant, a limited liability company, to pay court fees. On 30 June 2008 the applicant company sought before the Ankara 1 st   Commercial Court a global sum of 100,000,000 Turkish Liras   (TRY) against a creditor bank for all pecuniary, non-pecuniary and collateral damage, reserving its right to increase its claims in the course of the proceedings. It paid court fees based on TRY 5,000,000 of its action and requested exemption from the remainder of the court fees which amounted to TRY   1,410,750 (approximately 670,000 euros (EUR)) at the time. The Ankara 1 st   Commercial Court accepted the exemption request but ruled that the proceedings be joined to the applicant’s other action which was pending before the Ankara 8 th Commercial Court. In a decision of 24 March 2010, the Ankara   8 th   Commercial Court (the “first-instance court”) revoked the exemption granted to the applicant company by the Ankara 1 st   Commercial Court and gave the applicant three months to pay the outstanding court fees. The applicant objected to that decision and reiterated its request for exemption. Alternatively, it asked the first-instance court to continue with the proceedings for the amount of the claim for which it had already paid the relevant court fees. On 7 July 2010 the first-instance court held that it could not continue the proceedings for the amount for which the applicant had paid the court fees on the ground that the case it had brought could not be classified as partial litigation ( kısmi dava ) in as much as the applicant’s claim under different heads of damage was not divisible and therefore gave the applicant a final deadline to pay the court fees. On 4 April 2012, following the failure of the applicant to pay the court fees, the first-instance court discontinued the proceedings as a whole and decided to consider the case as never having been brought. The applicant appealed against the decision of 4 April 2012 without paying appeal fees which amounted to TRY205 (about EUR 93 at the   time) and by requesting an exemption from paying them. In a decision of 10   December 2012, the Court of Cassation rejected the request for exemption from appeal fees finding the applicant company’s alleged financial difficulty unconvincing and remitted the case to the first-instance court. On 21   February 2013 the applicant company paid the appeal fees. That being so, in a decision of 20   May 2013 the Court of Cassation ruled that the appeal had been lodged out of time on account of the late payment of the appeal fees. The applicant company lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court complaining of an infringement of its right of access to a court and requested an exemption from paying application fees, which amounted to TRY 198.35 (approximately EUR 75) at the time. On 30   November 2015, the Constitutional Court rejected this request holding that commercial companies were not eligible for legal aid. It noted that the States had a margin of appreciation with respect to granting legal aid to legal persons, referring to Granos Organicos Nacionales S.A. v.   Germany (no.   19508/07, 22 March 2012). The applicant company, invoking in particular Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention, complains about being deprived of its right of access to a court on account of the court fees imposed on it and on account of the failure to exempt it from those fees on the basis of its status as a commercial company. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Given the amount of court fees imposed on the applicant company to continue its litigation and the failure to exempt it from those fees on the basis of its status as a commercial company, was its right of “access to a court”, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, respected (see, inter alia , Kreuz v. Poland , no. 28249/95, § 54, ECHR 2001-VI, and Nalbant and   Others v. Turkey , no. 59914/16, §§ 32-47, 3 May 2022)?