CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 12 April 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 77043/12 Kemal KOCAMAN against Turkey lodged on 5 October 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings before a small claims court where the applicant’s cases against two parties concerning a contractual dispute were joined. In its judgment dated 30 June 2011, the small claims court granted the applicant’s case against one party but omitted to render a final decision concerning the other. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to obtain a determination of his dispute was violated. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic court’s failure to render a final decision concerning the applicant’s dispute with the other party amount to a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court (see, mutatis mutandis, Baškienė v. Lithuania , no. 11529/04, §§ 78-81, 24 July 2007)?