PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 2917/05) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Hüseyin Özel (“the applicant”), on 16 December 2004.

The applicant was represented by Mr H. Aygün, a lawyer practising in Tunceli. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that the court fees he had been required to pay were so excessive as to deny him his right of access to court.

On 19 January 2010 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the applicant’s right of access to court to the Government. It was decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of that complaint at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Tunceli.

On 8 April 2003 the applicant made a request to the Governorship of Tunceli to be informed about the living conditions in his village, which he claimed to have had to leave in 1994 for security reasons. On 14 April 2003 the Governorship of Tunceli informed the applicant that he could move back to his village and that he would receive services and financial support from the Governorship for doing so. Subsequently, on 18 June 2003 the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı) conducted an on-site inspection and issued a report which indicated that the houses in the village were old and ruined.

On 4 December 2003 the applicant, together with several other residents of the village, applied to the Ministry of the Interior through the Governorship of Tunceli requesting compensation for the damage to his property that had occurred over the ten years he had had to live away from his village.

On 7 January 2004 the Governorship of Tunceli submitted a report to the Ministry of the Interior. The report stated that the residents had left the village of their own accord in 1994 and that the Administration had no liability regarding the damage to the property. It indicated that, in any event, there was no record or title deed to prove the applicant’s ownership of property in the village. The report was later approved by the Ministry of the Interior.

On 3 March 2004 the applicant instituted compensation proceedings in the Malatya Administrative Court against the Ministry of the Interior. He requested a total of 150,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 90,000 euros (EUR) at the time), claiming that he had not been allowed to go back to his village for nine years and that the administration was indirectly liable for the damage that had occurred over that time. The applicant also requested legal aid to cover the court fees.

On 16 March 2004 the Malatya Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for legal aid, merely stating that he did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 22 March 2004 the court notified the applicant that he was required to pay a court fee of TRL 2,035,100,000 (approximately EUR 1,200) and a postal fee of TRL 40,000,000 (approximately EUR 25) within thirty days. The applicant objected to the court’s decision regarding his request for legal aid. On 31 May 2004 the Administrative Court rejected his objection. The court stated that its decisions regarding legal aid were final.

On 2 June 2004 the court once more informed the applicant that he had to pay the required fees within thirty days in order to continue the proceedings and that the proceedings would be discontinued if he failed to do so.

On 15 July 2004 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not paid the court fees.