CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11720/19 Orhan ERSOY against Türkiye lodged on 23 February 2019 communicated on 4 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s inability to pursue compensation proceedings before the administrative courts on account of the refusal of those courts to grant him an exemption to pay the court fees in question. On 12 September 2012 the applicant filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of   Justice, alleging negligence in supervising a fraudulent joint ‑ stock company, which had resulted in his incurring financial losses. He also requested an exemption from the court fees. On 19 September 2012 the administrative court rejected this request, finding that his claim had no reasonable prospects of success, and required him to pay the court fees in full. As the applicant did not do so, the case was discontinued. At the individual application stage, the Constitutional Court exempted the applicant from its application fee, acknowledging his financial hardship. However, on 16 July 2018 it dismissed his application as manifestly ill ‑ founded, finding that he had failed to provide sufficient evidence of his financial difficulty during his appeal and rectification requests before the Supreme Administrative Court. This decision was notified to the applicant on 13   November 2018. The applicant argues that, despite having submitted a certificate of indigence to the first-instance court, his request for exemption from the fees was not properly examined, violating his right to a fair trial under Article   6 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in the proceedings before the administrative courts (see, in particular , Bakan v.   Turkey , no.   50939/99, §§ 66 ‑ 78, 12 June 2007; Mehmet and Suna Yiğit v.   Turkey , no.   52658/99, §§   33 ‑ 39, 17   July 2007; Eyüp Kaya v. Turkey , no.   17582/04, §§   22-26, 23   September 2008; Kaba v. Turkey , no.   1236/05, §§   19 ‑ 25, 1   March 2011; and İlbeyi Kemaloğlu and Meriye Kemaloğlu v.   Turkey , no.   19986/06, § 52, 10   April 2012)?   2.     Considering that the administrative court rejected the applicant’s request for a fee exemption on the grounds that he had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success of his claim, as required by the applicable law at the time, and taking into account the applicant’s assertion that he submitted a certificate of indigence to the administrative court, can the applicant be deemed at fault for failing to provide sufficient evidence of his financial hardship during his appeal and rectification requests, as concluded by the Constitutional Court?