CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 octobre 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 26 October 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10959/07 Yalçın KAZAN against Turkey lodged on 6 February 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the authorities’ failure to pay default interest to the applicant for his reimbursed salary arrears. In 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his post. Following his reinstatement to his former job in 2000, he was reimbursed his salary arrears for the period between 1994 and 2000. Subsequently, he requested default interest on the amount awarded to him. Upon the refusal of his request, he initiated two sets of proceedings requesting the payment of default interest for his unpaid salaries. The first case was accepted in 2003 and the second was dismissed in 2006 on the grounds that the latter’s subject was exactly the same with the first one. The applicant claims that his initial action was about receiving the default interest for his salaries for the year 2000, whereas the latter action was related to the period between 1994 and 2000. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 6 and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of his property rights, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the domestic authorities’ refusal to apply default interest to the salary arrears awarded to him for the period between 1994 and 2000 (see, mutatis mutandis , Akkuş v.   Turkey , 9 July 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV, and Aka v. Turkey , 23 September 1998, Reports 1998 ‑ VI)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?