SECOND SECTION
CASE OF ALP v. TURKEY
(Applications nos. 8469/12 and 14040/12)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
7 July 2020
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Alp v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Egidijus Kūris, President,
 Ivana Jelić,
 Darian Pavli, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 June 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
The case concerns the alleged violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court on account of a procedural restriction preventing them from amending their claims in the course of administrative proceedings and the depreciation of the amount awarded by the domestic courts at the end of those proceedings due to inflation. THE FACTS
1. The applicants were born in 1993, 1995 and 1952 respectively and live in Ankara. 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 8 January 1997 F.A., the first and second applicants’ mother and the third applicant’s wife, died as a result of a passenger train colliding with her car in Sincan (Ankara). 4. On 28 May 1997 the applicants, while reserving their right to increase the amount of their claims in due course, brought compensation proceedings against the General Directorate of State Railways (“TCDD”) and the Municipality of Sincan (“the Municipality”) before the Sincan Civil Court of General Jurisdiction (“the Civil Court”). 5. During the course of the proceedings, the Civil Court decided to order an expert report to determine the damage sustained by the applicants and the degree of fault attributable to the Municipality in the accident. 6. On an unspecified date the expert submitted his findings and his assessment of the pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants to the Civil Court. According to the expert, the degree of fault attributable to the Municipality and the TCDD in the accident had been 25%. 7. On 29 April 1999 the applicants brought an additional action (ek dava) before the Civil Court to increase the amount of their initial claims in the light of the expert report. 8. On 15 June 1999 the Civil Court joined those cases and rejected them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, holding that the administrative courts were competent to examine the case. 9. Subsequently, on 15 September 1999 the applicants, while reserving their right to increase the amount of their claims in due course, lodged their compensation claim with the Ankara Administrative Court, claiming a total of 1,151,250,000 Turkish liras (TRL) in respect of pecuniary damage (including the cost of damage to the vehicle) and TRL 850,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, with interest to run from the date of the incident, that is, 8 January 1997 (see paragraph 3 above). 10. During the course of the proceedings, the court decided to order an expert report to determine the exact amount of pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. The report, which was submitted to the court on 17 July 2007, assessed the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants at 37,755.55 new Turkish liras (TRY[1]). According to a separate expert report, the cost of the damage to the vehicle was TRY 265. The applicants did not submit a request to the court to increase the amount of their initial claims in the light of that report. 11. In its decision of 27 February 2008, the Ankara Administrative Court awarded the applicants the amounts initially claimed by them, namely TRY 1,115 in respect of pecuniary damage, TRY 31.25 for the cost of the damage to the vehicle and TRY 850 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (equivalent, in total, to approximately 1,131 euros (EUR) at the time). The court also ruled that default statutory interest was to be applied to those amounts from the date on which the applicants had brought compensation proceedings before the Civil Court, that is, 28 May 1997 (see paragraph 4 above). 12. The applicants appealed against the judgment of the Administrative Court. They submitted, inter alia, that they had not been able to amend their initial claims in the light of the calculations in the expert report ordered by the court in the course of the proceedings, as the applicable law did not allow them to do so. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment as being in conformity with the applicable law and procedure. 13. On 22 June 2011 the judgment of the first-instance court became final. So far, no payment has been made to the applicants in respect of the amounts awarded by the Administrative Court. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
14. At the time of the events, Turkish administrative law did not allow claimants to amend their initial claims during the course of proceedings before the administrative courts (see, in particular, Okçu v. Turkey, no. 39515/03, §§ 27-32, 21 July 2009). 15. Since 30 April 2013, as a result of an amendment to the Code of Administrative Procedure, parties to full remedy actions have been able to revise their initial claims, provided that the related costs are paid. 16. The Compensation Commission was set up by Law no. 6384 in order to provide for the settlement, by means of compensation, of applications lodged with the Court concerning the length of judicial proceedings and non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions. A full description of the relevant domestic law can be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). 17. The Compensation Commission’s competence was recently extended by Presidential Decree no. 809 of 7 March 2019, published in the Official Gazette on 8 March 2019. Accordingly, the Compensation Commission is now competent to examine and grant compensation to applicants in cases where the Court has found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 without giving a decision on compensation or in cases where it has reserved the question under Article 41 of the Convention (see Kaynar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 21104/06 and 2 others, § 24, 7 May 2019). 18. Under section 28(2) of Law no. 2577 on administrative procedure, payment of specific amounts awarded in decisions and judgments is made by the respondent administrative authority to the bank account number provided by the claimant or his or her representative. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
19. The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. PRELIMINARY ISSUE
20. The Government argued that Oruç Yasin Alp, who had reached the age of majority when notice of the application was given to them – that is, on 19 October 2017 – had failed to present an authority form for his legal representation. 21. The Court notes that on 1 June 2017 Oruç Yasin Alp submitted to the Court a letter of authorisation designating a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings before the Court. The Government’s argument on this point should therefore be dismissed. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
22. The applicants complained that they had been prevented from amending their initial claims during the course of the administrative proceedings in their case. The Court considers that the complaint concerns the applicants’ right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Submissions by the parties
23. The applicants maintained their initial arguments. 24. The Government submitted that, during the proceedings before the Civil Court, the applicants had been able to revise their initial claims in respect of pecuniary damage by bringing an additional action. They maintained that when the Ankara Administrative Court delivered its judgment, it had taken into consideration those amended claims. The Government further submitted that the legislation in question, which had prevented claimants from modifying their initial claims before the administrative courts, had been amended on 30 April 2013 (see paragraph 15 above). Admissibility
25. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other ground listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.

Outcome for Article 6: violation