CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 8766/24 Süleyman Ufuk ŞEN against Türkiye lodged on 18 March 2024 communicated on 1 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint of an alleged violation of his right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, on account of the allegedly erroneous application of time-limit rules by the Konya Regional Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 December 2021. The proceedings in question concerned the applicant’s claims for the payment of his salaries, together with statutory interest, which were not paid to him during the period between 2016 and 2020, when he was dismissed from public office. The applicant argues that, in dismissing his case, the Konya Regional Administrative Court failed to take into account Provisional Article 1 of Law   No.   7226, which provided for the suspension of time limits for filing lawsuits with the aim of preventing loss of rights in the judicial field due to the Covid-19 outbreak. He also refers to Presidential Decree No. 2480, which extended the suspension period introduced in Law No. 7226 for the same purpose. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant further complains that the Turkish Constitutional Court’s decision, dated 8 November 2023 (which was notified to the applicant on 20 November 2023), lacked sufficient and adequate reasoning, as it dismissed his application solely on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, without addressing his complaint concerning the right of access to a court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the method used by the Konya Regional Administrative Court, in its judgment of 9 December 2021, to calculate the time limit for the applicant’s claims for payment of his withheld salaries with statutory interest constitute a violation of the guarantees under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular the right to access to a court and the principle of legal certainty (see Zemanová v. the Czech Republic , no. 6019/03, §§ 19-22, 13   December 2005; Šimecki v. Croatia , no. 15253/10, §§ 44-48, 30 April 2014; and Plasty   Prod S.A. v. Romania , no. 8889/18, §§ 7-15, 16 April 2024)?   2.     Did the failure of the Constitutional Court to provide reasons for its decision to dismiss the applicant’s individual application on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, without addressing his complaint concerning the right of access to a court, amount to a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for the relevant principles, Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) , no. 5386/10, § 91, 24 March 2022)?   3.     Was there a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as a result of the dismissal of his claim for the payment of unpaid salaries, together with statutory interest (see Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece , no. 44769/07, §§ 36-37, 5 November 2009)?