CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 18 December 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 63398/10 ARI-TEM LTD. ŞTİ. against Turkey lodged on 11 October 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of the applicant company’s (Arı-Tem İnşaat Temizlik Güvenlik Yemek Üretim Hizmetleri Tekstil Zirai İlaç Taahhüt Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi) right of access to a court whereby it challenged the tax penalty imposed on it. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts dismissed its cases in which it contested the validity of the service of the tax penalty notices issued in respect of it to an employee of a different company registered at a different address.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court’s General Assembly in cases raising similar issues (decisions of 8   April 2003, E.2003/1996, K.2004/713, and 3 May 1995, E.1993/914, K.1995/1968) and considering that the allegations of the applicant company were not unsubstantiated, was the Diyarbakır Tax Court’s dismissal of its cases so formalistic as to disproportionately restrict its right of access to a court (see, mutatis mutandis Paroutsas and Others v.   Greece , no.   34639/09, 2   March 2017)?