Examination of a case without hearing does not violate the fair trial
JUDGMENT
Özmurat İnşaat Elektrik Nakliyat Temizlik San. ve Tic. Ε.Π.Ε. Şti. v. Turkey 28.11.2017 (no. 48657/06)
SUMMARY
The case concerns the appeal of a company fined for extraction outside the area for which it was licensed. The company’s representatives filed a petition for suspension before the court requesting that the fine be suspended, while invoking criminal proceedings for blackmail, which were pending against some of the officials involved in the inspection report that formed the basis for the imposition of the fine. The applicant company complains about the unfair nature of the proceedings in its case. She complains that the domestic court has rejected her application for an administrative fine without conducting a hearing, conducting an autopsy or witnessing. The Court has accused the applicant of finding a violation of the fair trial
PROVISION
Article 6
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant company, Özmurat İnşaat Elektrik Nakliyat Temizlik San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti, is a
construction company based in Mersin (Turkey). The case concerned a fine against the applicant
company for mining outside of the area for which it had a license. It failed to pay the fine and the
plot of land on which it had carried out its mining activities ended up being seized in 2008.
The applicant company was inspected in January 2006 and the ensuing report ordered the company
to pay a fine of 132,250 Turkish liras (at the time 82,000 euros) for quarrying substantial amounts of
sand outside of the area for which it had a mining license. It subsequently filed an objection with the
Tarsus Magistrates’ Court, requesting that the fine be stayed and drawing the court’s attention to
criminal proceedings for extortion which were pending against certain officials who had been
involved in drawing up the inspection report. The company further requested the court to hold an
oral hearing, to carry out an on-site examination of the mine and to hear its witnesses in order to
better evaluate the credibility of the inspection report used to order the fine. However, relying on
the inspection report, the court rejected the company’s objection. It also rejected its request for a
hearing without specifying any particular reason. The company objected to this decision, also
without success.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant company complained about
the unfairness of the proceedings in its case. It complained in particular that the domestic court had
rejected its objection to the administrative fine without holding an oral hearing or directly assessing
evidence from the parties and witnesses.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: The applicant company did not submit a claim for just satisfaction(echrcaselaw.com editing).
