SECOND SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no.49266\/06
\nHasan AN\u015e\u0130N
\nagainst Turkey<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20\u00a0November 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ledi Bianku, President,
\nJon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107, judges,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 December 2006,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Hasan An\u015fin, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Bing\u00f6l. He was represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Atl\u0131, a lawyer practising in Bing\u00f6l.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Law no. 5233 on Compensation of the Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Measures Taken against Terrorism, the applicant applied to the compensation commission and requested compensation because of the damage he had suffered, stating that his shop had been burned down by members of an illegal organisation \u201cHizbullah\u201d. The commission rejected the request.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant initiated proceedings before the Elaz\u0131\u011f Administrative Court to have the above-mentioned decision annulled. He further requested legal aid to be exempt from paying the relevant court fees.<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 March 2006 the administrative court decided that the applicant did not qualify for legal aid. He was therefore notified that he had to pay 9,166\u00a0Turkish Liras (TRY) (approximately 5,626 euros (EUR)) in court fees within one month to continue the proceedings and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0As the applicant failed to pay the court fees within the time-limit, on 28\u00a0July 2006 the Elaz\u0131\u011f Administrative Court sent a further warning letter and ordered the applicant to pay the required court fees.<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 September 2006 the court decided to discontinue the proceedings since the necessary court fees were not deposited with the registry of the court (2006\/738E, 2006\/1192K).<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 November 2006 the applicant appealed against the decision of 20\u00a0September 2006 and argued that he should have been entitled to legal aid.<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 November 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the Elaz\u0131\u011f Administrative Court, dated 20\u00a0September 2006, and concluded that the applicant was entitled to legal aid due to documents attesting to his indigence. The case was accordingly remitted before the Elaz\u0131\u011f Administrative Court.<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 April 2010 the Elaz\u0131\u011f Administrative Court granted legal aid to the applicant and started examining the merits of the case.<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 March 2012 the first instance court found in line with the applicant\u2019s arguments and awarded him approximately EUR\u00a0212,000 in respect of the damage he had suffered as a result of the terror attack at his shop.<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 November 2013 and 28 May 2015, respectively, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal and rectification requests.<\/p>\n
COMPLAINT<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied access to a court on account of the Elaz\u0131\u011f Administrative Courts\u2019 refusal to grant him legal aid to pay the necessary court fees.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the refusal to grant him legal aid in connection with his compensation case had infringed his right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the application was inadmissible because the applicant was no longer a victim. They informed the Court that after the applicant had lodged his application with the Court, the domestic courts had granted him legal aid and he was dispensed from paying the court fees. The merits of his case were subsequently examined and the applicant was awarded compensation for the damage he had endured as a result of the terror attack in question.<\/p>\n
17.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not comment on the observations of the Government.<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that it falls, in the first place, to the national authorities to redress any violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be the victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see, Siliadin v. France, no. 73316\/01, \u00a7 61, ECHR 2005\u2011VII; Scordino v.\u00a0Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813\/97, \u00a7 179, ECHR 2006\u2011V; and G\u00e4fgen v.\u00a0Germany [GC], no. 22978\/05, \u00a7 115, ECHR 2010). A decision or measure favorable to the applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a \u201cvictim\u201d for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see, Siliadin, cited above, \u00a7 62; Scordino (no. 1), cited above, \u00a7\u00a0180; and G\u00e4fgen, cited above, \u00a7 62).<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0In the instant case the applicant complained of a violation of his right of access to a court under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of his inability to obtain legal aid to pay the court fees in order to be able to initiate compensation proceedings against the administration. The Court reiterates that Article 6 \u00a7 1 imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements and the best solution for redressing a violation of the right to a fair trial is, as in many spheres, prevention (see, among others, Bottazzi v.\u00a0Italy [GC], no. 34884\/97, \u00a7 22, ECHR 1999\u2011V; Scordino(no.\u00a01), cited above, \u00a7 183; and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886\/01, \u00a7\u00a074, ECHR 2006\u2011V). Furthermore in cases in which a violation of the Convention has caused significant pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage to the applicant, an award of compensation to the applicant is required where appropriate or, at least, the possibility of seeking and obtaining compensation for the damage which the applicant sustained as a result of violation of his Convention rights (see, mutatis mutandis, G\u00e4fgen, cited above, \u00a7 116, and Petrov v. Russia (dec.), no. 12097\/05, \u00a7 25, 22\u00a0October 2013).<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that following the refusal of the Elaz\u0131\u011f Administrative Court\u2019s to grant legal aid, the applicant filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court to have that decision quashed. While the proceedings were pending before the appeal court, the applicant also lodged an application with the Court. Subsequently, the appeal court found in favour of the applicant and concluded that he should be granted legal aid due to his poor financial situation. The first instance court further adhered to this judgment, and granted legal aid to the applicant. Consequently, the applicant was dispensed from paying the relevant court fees and he was able to have the merits of his compensation case examined by the administrative court. At the end of the domestic proceedings, the applicant was awarded compensation for the loss he had to endure as a result of the terror attack at his shop.<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the foregoing, the Court therefore concludes that the applicant can no longer claim to be the victim of a violation of the right of access to a court under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The present application is therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n
Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n
Done in English and notified in writing on 13 December 2018.<\/p>\n
Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ledi Bianku
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n