Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=17.09.2013&Aktenzeichen=59601/09
Timestamp: 2019-12-11 08:09:25+00:00

Document:
EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 59601/09 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2013,24498
EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 59601/09 (https://dejure.org/2013,24498)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.09.2013 - 59601/09 (https://dejure.org/2013,24498)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. September 2013 - 59601/09 (https://dejure.org/2013,24498)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,24498) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
EGMR, 24.04.2019 - 59601/09
However, courts are bound to apply the rules of procedure avoiding both excessive formalism that would impair the fairness of the proceedings and excessive flexibility such as would render nugatory the procedural requirements laid down in statutes (see Bulena v. the Czech Republic, no. 57567/00, § 30, 20 April 2004, and Esim v. Turkey, no. 59601/09, § 21, 17 September 2013).
The right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, must be construed in the light of the rule of law, which requires that all litigants should have an effective judicial remedy enabling them to assert their civil rights (see, among other authorities, Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 5809/08, § 126, ECHR 2016; Esim v. Turkey, no. 59601/09, § 18, 17 September 2013; and Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-IX).
In particular, it has held that the right of access to a court is impaired when the rules cease to serve the aims of legal certainty and the proper administration of justice and form a sort of barrier preventing the litigant from having his or her case determined on the merits by the competent court (see, for instance, Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 79 in fine, ECHR 2009 (extracts); see also Efstathiou and Others v. Greece, no. 36998/02, § 24 in fine, 27 July 2006, and Esim v. Turkey, no. 59601/09, § 21, 17 September 2013).
La Cour rappelle que le droit à un procès équitable, garanti par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, doit s'interpréter à la lumière du principe de la prééminence du droit, qui exige l'existence d'une voie judiciaire effective permettant de revendiquer les droits civils (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Beles et autres c. République tchèque, no 47273/99, § 49, CEDH 2002-IX ; et Esim c. Turquie, no 59601/09, § 18, 17 septembre 2013).
In the present case, the Court observes that the applicants have submitted bills showing that they had paid their legal representative the amount of TRY 3000 (EUR 1, 260), but have not submitted any other documentation - such as a bill, a fee agreement or a document showing the time spent by the legal representatives on the case - in support of the remainder of their claim of EUR 4, 220. It is to be observed in this connection that a mere reliance on the recommended fee scales issued by Bar Associations does not constitute sufficient evidence to substantiate a claim for a legal representative's fees (see, inter alia, Esim v. Turkey, no. 59601/09, §§ 28 and 31, 17 September 2013).
Aussi, en rejetant le recours comme tardif dans ces circonstances, au motif que la réclamation administrative n'avait pas été introduite dans un délai qui courait à partir de la date de l'incident et non de celle de la prise de connaissance d'une éventuelle négligence fautive de l'administration, la Haute Cour administrative militaire a privé les requérants de leur droit d'accès à un tribunal (voir, dans le même sens, Esim c. Turquie, no 59601/09, 17 septembre 2013 et Yabansu et autres c. Turquie, no 43903/09, 12 novembre 2013).
Par ailleurs, la Cour souligne qu'un délai de recours ne peut courir qu'à compter de la date à laquelle celui qui l'invoque est en mesure d'agir valablement, c'est-à-dire la date à laquelle il a eu ou pouvait avoir connaissance de l'acte ou de la décision portant atteinte à ses droits et contre lequel ou laquelle il souhaite agir (voir Esim c. Turquie, no 59601/09, § 20, 17 septembre 2013, Yabansu et autres c. Turquie, no 43903/09, § 68, 12 novembre 2013 et Sefer Yilmaz et Meryem Yilmaz c. Turquie, no 611/12, § 70, 17 novembre 2015).
The Court recalls that it has already examined a similar complaint in the case of Esim v. Turkey, (no. 59601/09, 17 September 2013) and found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the ground, inter alia, that right to access to a court should not be disregarded by strict interpretation of the time-limit which precludes a full examination of the merits of the case and imposes a disproportionate burden on the applicant.
Did the limitation period and the dies a quo - as determined and applied in the present cases - restrict the applicants" right to a court in a manner compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Esim v. Turkey, no. 59601/09, §§ 18-21, 17 September 2013; and Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland, nos. 52067/10 and 41072/11, §§ 70-73, 11 March 2014)?.
Le droit à un procès équitable, garanti par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, doit s'interpréter à la lumière du principe de la prééminence du droit, qui exige l'existence d'une voie judiciaire effective permettant de revendiquer les droits civils (voir, parmi d'autres, Al-Dulimi et Montana Management Inc. c. Suisse [GC], no 5809/08, § 126, CEDH 2016 ; Esim c. Turquie, no 59601/09, § 18, 17 septembre 2013, et Beles et autres c. République tchèque, no 47273/99, § 49, CEDH 2002-IX).
EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 3952/11
ÇAKMAKÇI v. TURKEY
EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 49188/11
HUCKO v. SLOVAKIA
EGMR - 55657/09 (anhängig)
ÇELEBI v. TURKEY

References: § 30
 § 21
 § 1
 § 126
 § 18
 § 49
 § 79
in fine
 § 24
in fine
 § 21
 l'article 6
 § 1
 § 49
 § 18
 § 20
 § 68
 § 70
 § 1
 § 1
 l'article 6
 § 1
 § 126
 § 18
 § 49