CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCDD55F3 { margin-left:14.17pt; padding-left:3.68pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sE58FF9D5 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.84pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt }   Published on 25 October 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 46359/20 Tuncay KARAKUŞ against Turkey and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 7 October 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern claims brought by the applicants before civil courts on the basis of the Consumer Act with a view to challenging the existence of a debt as established by promissory notes issued by them to the order of a private school in the course of enforcement proceedings. The civil courts declared themselves incompetent to examine the applicants’ claims on the basis of section 5 of Legislative Decree no. 670 and section 16   (3) of Legislative Decree no. 675, holding that the private school in question had been shut down and transferred to the State pursuant to emergency measures in the aftermath of the attempted coup and that therefore all legal actions against such institutions should be lodged against the State before administrative courts. The applicants lodged an individual appeal with the Constitutional Court, complaining of an infringement with their right of access to a court on the grounds that the civil courts’ refusal to examine their claims had been manifestly unreasonable. They argued in that connection that the exception provided for in the said legislative decrees gave administrative courts power to settle disputes only when they arose out of debt claims lodged against the State as the successor of the shut-down institutions, which had not been the situation in their case since the enforcement proceedings in question had been lodged by the State against them. On various dates, the Constitutional Court declared their appeals inadmissible by way of a summary decision on account of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were denied access to court as a result of the refusal of the civil courts to examine their claims.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, could the applicants be expected to bring their claims before administrative courts having regard to the fact that the type of declaratory action ( bonodan kaynaklanan menfi tespit istemi ) sought by them in the case is outside the field of application of administrative law proceedings?   If so, the Government are requested to provide the Court with relevant case-law examples regarding the competence or non-competence of administrative courts in such disputes.       APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by     46359/20 Karakuş v. Turkey 06/10/2020 Tuncay KARAKUŞ 1973 Samsun Turkish Oğuzhan YILMAZ   46606/20 Koysal v. Turkey 06/10/2020 Murat KOYSAL 1973 Samsun Turkish Oğuzhan YILMAZ   46617/20 Parlak v. Turkey 06/10/2020 Fatih PARLAK 1979 Samsun Turkish Oğuzhan YILMAZ   50147/20 İskender v. Turkey 23/10/2020 Ali Bayram İSKENDER 1976 Samsun Turkish Oğuzhan YILMAZ   51843/20 Yıldız v. Turkey 03/11/2020 Mustafa YILDIZ 1972 Samsun Turkish Oğuzhan YILMAZ   52564/20 Taplak v. Turkey 03/11/2020 Murat TAPLAK 1978 Samsun Turkish Oğuzhan YILMAZ