CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 13662/20 Mecit ACAR against Türkiye lodged on 2 March 2020 communicated on 4 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of civil proceedings in a property dispute, in which the civil court ultimately ruled that the applicant had fraudulently transferred the immovable property to a third party to circumvent a prior agreement with the claimant. The applicant, a defendant in those proceedings along with the beneficiary of the contested transfer, submits that he was not notified of the resumed proceedings after the Court of Cassation reversed the civil court’s initial judgment dismissing the case. He argues that he was effectively denied the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, present evidence and challenge the opposing party’s evidence, which resulted in the property being registered in the claimant’s name. On 30 December 2019 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s individual application inadmissible. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was unable to effectively participate in the proceedings.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, as well as his right to be present at the hearing, respected in the examination of the case following the Court of Cassation’s reversal, given his absence from those proceedings (see, among others, Dilipak and Karakaya v.   Turkey , nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, §§   76-80, 4   March 2014; Gyuleva v.   Bulgaria , no. 38840/08, §§ 35-39, 9   June 2016; Schmidt v. Latvia , no.   22493/05, §§ 86-90, 27 April 2017; Bacaksız v.   Turkey , no. 24245/09, §§   52-57 and 64, 10 December 2019; and Berestov v.   Russia , no. 17342/13, §§ 35-37, 18 May 2021)?