CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mars 2026

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 13 April 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14816/25 Ali Utku ŞİMŞEK against Türkiye lodged on 15 April 2025 communicated on 23 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, an alleged violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court on account of the rejection of his summary appeal petition for its being out of time. The applicant was involved in a scuffle that resulted in the death of one   individual and the injury of another. On 13 December 2023 the First Division of the Tarsus Assize Court (“the trial court”) convicted the applicant of (i) voluntary manslaughter and (ii)   infliction of bodily harm in his capacity as an assister ( yardım eden ) and sentenced him respectively to nine years, four months and fifteen days’ imprisonment and one year, six months and twenty-two days’ imprisonment. The trial court also decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment ( hükmün açıklanmasının geriye bırakılması ) in respect of the latter offence. When pronouncing the sentences at the oral hearing of 13 December 2023, the trial court stated that the applicant could lodge an appeal ( istinaf ) to the regional court of appeal within seven days regarding item (i), and file an objection ( itiraz ) with the assize court within seven days regarding item (ii). On 15 December 2023 the applicant submitted a short notice of appeal ( süre tutum dilekçesi ), stating that he would produce the appeal grounds as soon as he received the reasoned judgment. On 22 December 2023 the reasoned judgment of the trial court was handed down and was served on the applicant on 2 January 2024. On 28 December 2023 and again on 9   January 2024, the applicant lodged an objection against item (ii) by naming the correct judicial authority and explicitly including the term “objection”. On 15 January 2024 the trial court dismissed the applicant’s objection. On 30 January 2024 the Second Division of the Tarsus Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection against the decision of 15   January 2024 for its being out of time. It took the view that the applicant’s short notice of appeal dated 15 December 2023 referred to an “appeal” and made no mention of an “objection”. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of his right of access to a court, on the grounds that, firstly, his summary appeal petition was rejected due to an overly formalistic approach, and secondly, he was compelled to lodge an appeal against the domestic court’s ruling in the absence of a reasoned judgment.         QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the rejection of the applicant’s objection as belated – solely on the ground that the term “objection” was not explicitly used in his short notice of appeal – constitute a violation of his right of access to a court?   In particular, having regard to the applicant’s claim that his request and true intent were directed at the entirety of the trial court’s ruling, and to Article   264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that errors in specifying the legal remedy or the competent authority do not extinguish an accused’s procedural rights, did the domestic courts’ approach amount to excessive formalism (see, among others, Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no.   40160/12, §§ 78-86, 5 April 2018; Vachik Karapetyan and Others v.   Armenia , no. 15736/16, § 88, 15 May 2025; Walchli v.   France , no.   35787/03, § 29, 26 July 2007;   and Llavador Carretero v.   Spai n , no.   21937/06, §§ 22-23, 15 December 2009 )?   2.     Having regard to the applicant’s arguments – namely, that expecting him to file an objection immediately after the conviction was announced but before the service of the reasoned judgment is at variance with the domestic law (the Turkish Constitutional Court’s decision dated 26 July 2023 and numbered E.   2022/144, K. 2023/137 concerning Article 273 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271)) – did the rejection of the applicant’s objection on the grounds of being out of time amount to a disproportionate interference with his right of access to court?