Published on 3 February 2025
 
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 15779/24
Mustafa AVCI against Türkiye
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 16 January 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the amount of money that the applicants had to pay to the opposing party, a municipality, in costs and expenses in the context of employment disputes.
The applicants lodged separate compensation claims with the labour court against a municipality to which their employer was providing services. During the course of the proceedings, the applicants increased their claims to the amount calculated in the expert reports obtained by the labour court.
In 2021, the labour court partially accepted the applicants’ claims and awarded them various amounts in compensation (see the appended table). The labour court also calculated the legal fees to be paid by each party to the other, considering the amount of the claim each party had won (see the appended table).
The applicants complain that the amount they were ordered to pay to the opposing party in respect of the latter’s legal representation costs violated their right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and their right to respect for their property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
 
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the order on the applicants to reimburse the opposing party’s legal representation costs, taking into account the difference between the amounts they were required to pay and the amounts they were awarded, constitute a violation of their right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or of their right to respect for their property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Perdigão v. Portugal [GC], no. 24768/06, §§ 57-79, 16 November 2010; Klauz v. Croatia, no. 28963/10, §§ 78-97 and 108-110, 18 July 2013; Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, §§ 91-111 and 116-123, 6 September 2016; and Musa Tarhan v. Turkey, no. 12055/17, §§ 71-89, 23 October 2018)? More particularly, was the interference prescribed by law and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Introduction date
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Representative’s name
Location
The compensation awarded to the applicant
The amount awarded to the applicant as legal representation fee
The amount the applicant had to pay to the other party as legal representation fee
1.
15779/24
Avcı v. Türkiye
20/05/2024
Mustafa AVCI
1979
Kayseri
Turkish
Seyit DOĞAN
Kayseri
TRY 11,042 (approximately EUR 985 at the date of the judgment)
TRY 4,080 (approximately EUR 364 at the date of the judgment)
TRY 11,552 (approximately EUR 1,031 at the date of the judgment)
 
2.
15895/24
Güler v. Türkiye
20/05/2024
Turan GÜLER
1966
Kayseri
Turkish
Seyit DOĞAN
Kayseri
TRY 39,344 (approximately EUR 1,338 at the date of the judgment)
TRY 17,900 (approximately EUR 608 at the date of the judgment)
TRY 17,900 (approximately EUR 608 at the date of the judgment)
 
3.
15925/24
Özdemir v. Türkiye
20/05/2024
Faik ÖZDEMİR
1966
Antal
Turkish
 
Seyit DOĞAN
Kayseri
TRY 21,527 (approximately EUR 1,087 at the date of the judgment)
TRY 9,200 (approximately EUR 465 at the date of the judgment)
TRY 28,559 (approximately EUR 1,442 at the date of the judgment)
4.
16009/24
Zengin v. Türkiye
20/05/2024
Ali ZENGİN
1968
Kayseri
Turkish
 
Seyit DOĞAN
Kayseri
TRY 1,772 (approximately EUR 115 at the date of the judgment
TRY 1,772 (approximately EUR 115 at the date of the judgment)
TRY 7,859 (approximately EUR 510 at the date of the judgment)
5.
17157/24
Bulut v. Türkiye
21/05/2024
Kadir BULUT
1967
Kayseri
Turkish
 
Seyit DOĞAN
Kayseri
TRY 37,283 (approximately EUR 1,129 at the date of the judgment)
TRY 18,350 (approximately EUR 555 at the date of the judgment)
TRY 44,793 (approximately EUR 1,356 at the date of the judgment)