Individual Application

The Facts

The applicant company sought the reimbursement of the overpaid default interest in respect of the immovable property owned by it for the years 2003–2005, which had been judicially determined to be subject to limited taxation, but its request was dismissed. Subsequently, the applicant brought an action for annulment of the impugned administrative act and for reimbursement of TRY 500,000 paid as default interest. The tax court ruled in favour of the applicant. Referring to the principle of being bound by the claim, the court annulled the impugned act and ordered the reimbursement of the default interest of TRY 500,000, along with the accrued deferred interest. The applicant appealed against the decision and simultaneously submitted a petition requesting an increase in the amount in dispute. The request for an increase in the amount was rejected by the Council of State. Upon the dismissal of the applicant’s subsequent request for rectification of the decision, the decision became final.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant maintained that the dismissal of its request for an increase in the amount in dispute during the appellate proceedings within the scope of the full remedy action initiated with a specified claim constituted a violation of the right to access to a court.

The Court’s Assessment

In the present case, the court issued an interlocutory decision ordering the defendant administration to provide certain information to ascertain the amount overpaid by the applicant. In its judgment, the court stated that the administration had responded to the interlocutory decision, indicating that TRY 606,163.19 in default interest had been collected on nine-tenths of the overdue tax during the specified period. Referring to the principle of being bound by the claim, the court annulled the impugned administrative act and ordered the reimbursement of TRY 500,000 in default interest to the applicant.

The administration’s response to the interlocutory decision was not communicated to the applicant. It was observed that the applicant became aware of the administration’s response only upon receiving the court’s judgment and subsequently submitted another petition on the same day when it submitted a petition of appeal, requesting an increase in the impugned amount.

The applicant was unable to increase the specified amount in the initial petition before being served with the court’s decision, due to lack of knowledge about the actual amount eligible for reimbursement. Accordingly, no fault could be attributed to the applicant. On the contrary, the court gave rise to this circumstance by concluding the case without serving the applicant with the administration’s response to the interlocutory decision which contained information that could have formed the basis for the request to increase the value of the claim. Having ascertained the actual amount from the reasoned decision, the applicant promptly filed a petition, requesting an increase in the impugned amount.

In the present case, the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that a request to increase the amount in dispute could only be submitted before the inferior court rendered its decision imposed an excessive burden on the applicant. Accordingly, it has been concluded that such a situation rendered the interference with the applicant’s right to access to a court disproportionate.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to access to a court under the right to a fair trial.