CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2025

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s5C7E64EC { height:79.9pt } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 3 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15779/24 Mustafa AVCI against Türkiye and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 16 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the amount of money that the applicants had to pay to the opposing party, a municipality, in costs and expenses in the context of employment disputes. The applicants lodged separate compensation claims with the labour court against a municipality to which their employer was providing services. During the course of the proceedings, the applicants increased their claims to the amount calculated in the expert reports obtained by the labour court. In 2021, the labour court partially accepted the applicants’ claims and awarded them various amounts in compensation (see the appended table). The labour court also calculated the legal fees to be paid by each party to the other, considering the amount of the claim each party had won (see the appended table). The applicants complain that the amount they were ordered to pay to the opposing party in respect of the latter’s legal representation costs violated their right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and their right to respect for their property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the order on the applicants to reimburse the opposing party’s legal representation costs, taking into account the difference between the amounts they were required to pay and the amounts they were awarded, constitute a violation of their right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or of their right to respect for their property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Perdigão v.   Portugal [GC], no. 24768/06, §§ 57-79, 16 November 2010; Klauz v.   Croatia , no.   28963/10, §§ 78-97 and 108-110, 18 July 2013; Cindrić and Bešlić v.   Croatia , no. 72152/13, §§ 91-111 and 116-123, 6 September 2016; and Musa Tarhan v. Turkey , no. 12055/17, §§ 71-89, 23 October 2018)? More particularly, was the interference prescribed by law and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued? APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location The compensation awarded to the applicant The amount awarded to the applicant as legal representation fee The amount the applicant had to pay to the other party as legal representation fee 1. 15779/24 Avcı v.   Türkiye 20/05/2024 Mustafa AVCI 1979 Kayseri Turkish Seyit DOĞAN Kayseri TRY 11,042 (approximately EUR   985 at the date of the judgment) TRY 4,080 (approximately EUR 364 at the date of the judgment) TRY 11,552 (approximately EUR   1,031 at the date of the judgment)   2. 15895/24 Güler v.   Türkiye 20/05/2024 Turan GÜLER 1966 Kayseri Turkish Seyit DOĞAN Kayseri TRY 39,344 (approximately EUR   1,338 at the date of the judgment) TRY 17,900 (approximately EUR   608 at the date of the judgment) TRY 17,900 (approximately EUR   608 at the date of the judgment)   3. 15925/24 Özdemir v.   Türkiye 20/05/2024 Faik ÖZDEMİR 1966 Antal Turkish   Seyit DOĞAN Kayseri TRY 21,527 (approximately EUR   1,087 at the date of the judgment) TRY 9,200 (approximately EUR 465 at the date of the judgment) TRY 28,559 (approximately EUR   1,442 at the date of the judgment) 4. 16009/24 Zengin v.   Türkiye 20/05/2024 Ali ZENGİN 1968 Kayseri Turkish   Seyit DOĞAN Kayseri TRY 1,772 (approximately EUR   115 at the date of the judgment TRY 1,772 (approximately EUR 115 at the date of the judgment) TRY 7,859 (approximately EUR   510 at the date of the judgment) 5. 17157/24 Bulut v.   Türkiye 21/05/2024 Kadir BULUT 1967 Kayseri Turkish   Seyit DOĞAN Kayseri TRY 37,283 (approximately EUR   1,129 at the date of the judgment) TRY 18,350 (approximately EUR   555 at the date of the judgment) TRY 44,793 (approximately EUR   1,356 at the date of the judgment)