CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 octobre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 134 October 2010 Toyaksi and Others v. Turkey (dec.) - 43569/08, 5801/09, 19732/09 et al. Decision 20.10.2010 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Imposition of small fines by courts for vexatious applications for rectification of judgments: inadmissible   Facts – The applicants were issued with fines ranging from 120 to 170   Turkish liras* by the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Military Administrative Court under section   442 of the Code of Civil Procedure after unsuccessfully seeking the rectification of judgments that had been delivered by those courts. In their applications to the European Court, the applicants complained that the imposition of fines for having used a statutory legal remedy had violated their right of access to court. Law – Article 6 § 1: The imposition of a fine in order to prevent a build-up of cases before the courts and to ensure the proper administration of justice was not, as such, in conflict with the right of access to court. The fines imposed on the applicants had constituted a penalty for vexatious rectification proceedings before the higher courts. None of the applicants had complained that they had been unable to have their cases heard due to the fines and their right of access to court had not been impaired in any way as they had had the opportunity to have their cases examined thoroughly before two levels of jurisdiction prior to their requests for rectification. There was no evidence that the amount of the fines had constituted a substantial economic burden. Accordingly, and in the specific circumstances of the case, the applicants’ right of access to court had not been violated. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). Article 7: The impugned fine did not constitute a penalty within the meaning of this provision, its sole purpose being the proper administration of justice. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). * Approximately EUR   60 to EUR   90 at the material time.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes