CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 avril 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 May 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35383/19 Ali TATLI against Türkiye lodged on 23 May 2019 communicated on 18 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a project to construct a dam and a hydroelectric power plant on the Solaklı River in the village of Çaykara in Trabzon. On 2   March 2015 the applicant, Mr Ali Tatlı, submitted a request to the Trabzon Governor’s Office under the Freedom of Information Act (Law no.   4982), asking whether the project in question had undergone an environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure and the appropriate administrative process. In its reply, the Governor’s Office stated that on 13   November 2015 a decision stating that an EIA was not required (hereinafter “EIA non-requirement decision”) had been issued in respect of the project. On 28 April 2016 the applicant lodged an action with the Trabzon Administrative Court requesting the setting-aside of the EIA non-requirement decision. On 10 May 2017 the Trabzon Administrative Court dismissed the action holding that the EIA non-requirement decision was in compliance with the law. Upon the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the administrative court’s decision and dismissed the case on the basis of the case file on the ground that the applicant had no standing to lodge an action. The Supreme Administrative Court reached this conclusion without seeking submissions from the applicant but following a search ex proprio motu in the UYAP (the National Judiciary Informatics System) with a view to determining whether the applicant resided in the area around the impugned project or had any immovable property there on the date when the action had been introduced with the administrative court and found that this was not the case. No appeal lay against the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court. On 12 November 2018 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s individual complaint, in which had alleged a breach of his right of access to a court, as manifestly ill-founded by way of a summary decision. The latter was served on him on 23 November 2018. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains of a breach of his right of access to a court on account of the manner in which the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that he had no locus standi, without giving him an opportunity to present evidence to prove his sufficient interest for the purpose of challenging the alleged unlawfulness of the EIA non-requirement decision. In this respect, the applicant submits that he actually owns immovable property in Çaykara, which he inherited from his father, but that the registration records in the UYAP remained under his late father’s name. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the administrative court proceedings involve the determination of “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Cangı and Others v. Türkiye , no. 48173/18, §§ 34-38, 14   November 2023)?   2.     If so, was the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article   6 §   1 infringed by the Supreme Administrative Court when it dismissed his case on the ground that he had no standing to challenge the EIA non-requirement decision before the administrative courts   ( see Zubac v. Croatia   [GC], no.   40160/12, §§   90-95, 5 April 2018)?