SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF KESK\u0130N v. TURKEY
\n(Application no. 16887\/09)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n10 July 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Keskin v. Turkey,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Ledi Bianku, President, Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 16887\/09) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Turkish national, Mr Tar\u0131k Keskin (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 23 March 2009.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Ms T. \u00c7eliky\u00fcrek, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 March 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Kayseri.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, who was a sergeant in the Army had a traffic accident in 2007 and was declared \u201cdisabled\u201d (Adimal\u00fcl\u201d).<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On unspecified date,the applicant requested the General Directorate of Pension Fund (the Fund) (\u201cEmekli-Sand\u0131\u011f\u0131\u201d) to modify his retirement statute as service-disabled (\u201cvazifemal\u00fcl\u00fc\u201d), but the fund rejected that request.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 9August 2007 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the Fund\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 22May 2008 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s request.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 11September 2008 the applicant\u2019s rectification request was rejected.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0During the proceedings, namely on 12 May 2008 and 29 July 2008 the Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Military Administrative Court filed lengthy written opinions on the case. However these opinions were not communicated to the applicant.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Meralv.\u00a0Turkey (no. 33446\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a021-26, 27 November 2007).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor\u2019s written opinions<\/strong><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor\u2019s written opinions during the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated his right to an adversarial and fair hearing. In this respect, he relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested that argument.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has already examined a similar complaint in the case of Meralv. Turkey (no. 33446\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a032-39, 27 November 2007) and found a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.It has also examined the present case and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in the above-mentioned judgment.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Alleged unfairness of the proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the administrative proceedings had not been fair.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that these submissions by the applicant do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its protocols. It follows that this complaint must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not submit a claim in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage within the time-limit set by the Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 1,600 Turkish Liras (TRY) (equivalent of approximately 310 euros (EUR)) in respect of lawyer\u2019s fees and TRY\u00a0125 (equivalent of approximately EUR 24) for other costs and expenses incurred before the domestic court. In that connection, he submitted two receipts concerning expenses before the domestic court and an agreement concerning the lawyer\u2019s fee.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, having regard to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 200 covering costs under all heads.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 concerning non\u2011communication of public prosecutor\u2019s opinion admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three monthsthe following amount, to be converted into the currency of the respondent Stateat the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a0200 (two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2018, pursuant to Rule 77\u00a7\u00a72 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 LediBianku
\nNeboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107,
\nJon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro, judges,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n