CASE OF TAMER TANRIKULU v. TURKEY
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)
Nebojša Vučinić;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
4. The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Iğdır. 5. On 14 January 2005, while the applicant was serving as a conscript in the army, he fell from the roof where he was on guard. Subsequently, he was treated in various civilian and military hospitals. According to a medical report dated 4 May 2005, the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from a left parietal craniotomy and was declared unfit for military service. 6. On 8 July 2005 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Defence for compensation for his injury. 7. Following a tacit dismissal of the claim by the administrative authorities, the applicant initiated compensation proceedings in respect of the injuries he had sustained during his military service before the Supreme Military Administrative Court on 1 November 2005. He sought 20,000 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 12,400 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and the same sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 8. An expert report dated 4 October 2007 assessed the applicant’s pecuniary damage at TRY 58,384 (approximately EUR 36,260). 9. On 19 October 2007 the applicant asked the court to increase his initial claim via an amendment (ıslah), stating that he had only become aware of the true extent of his pecuniary damage when he had received the expert’s report. 10. On 28 November 2007 the Supreme Military Administrative Court ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him the full amount of his initial claim in respect of pecuniary damage, namely TRY 20,000. It awarded him a further TRY 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. However, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for an amendment, considering itself bound by the initial claim. The court stated in particular: “The purpose of an amendment is to rectify a procedural act. Having regard to the judgment of the Constitutional Court published in the Official Journal of 4 November 2000, we must conclude that, in civil law, injured persons are entitled to seek additional compensation once an expert report has been issued. However, in the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, the time-limits of one year [from the date when a claimant becomes aware of the impugned act] and sixty days from the date of referral of the administrative authorities apply. Under section 46(4) of the Supreme Military Administrative Court Act, the amount claimed cannot be rectified once those deadlines have passed. Consequently, the applicant’s amendment claim must be rejected for being out of time ...” 11. By a judgment of 16 April 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s application for rectification of its previous decision.