SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 2917/05
by Hüseyin ÖZEL
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
	Françoise Tulkens, President,Ireneu Cabral Barreto,Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,Danutė Jočienė,Dragoljub Popović,Nona Tsotsoria,Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 December 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Hüseyin Özel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Tunceli. He is represented before the Court by Mr H. Aygün, a lawyer practising in Tunceli.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1994 the applicant was forced to leave his village in Tunceli for security reasons.
On an unspecified date in 2003 the Governorship of Tunceli informed the applicant that he could move back to his village and that he would receive services and pecuniary support from the Governorship.
On 18 June 2003 the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı) conducted an on-site inspection and issued a report which indicated that the houses in the village were old and ruined.
On 4 December 2003 the applicant, together with several other residents of the village, applied to the Ministry of Interior through the Governorship of Tunceli and requested compensation for his loss.
On 7 January 2004 the Governorship of Tunceli submitted a report to the Ministry of Interior. The report stated that the residents had left the village of their own will in 1994 and that the Administration had no liability regarding damage to the property over the years. It indicated that, in any event, there was no record or title deed to prove the applicant’s ownership of property in the village. The report was later approved by the Ministry of Interior.
On 3 March 2004 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Interior claiming compensation, in that he was not allowed to go back to his village for nine years and that the Administration was indirectly liable for the damage that had occurred over time. The applicant also requested legal aid to cover the court fees.
On 16 March 2004 the Malatya Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for legal aid as he did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
On 22 March 2004 the court notified the applicant that he was required to pay a court fee of 2,035,100,000 Turkish liras (TRL) and a postal fee of TRL 40,000,000 within thirty days.
The applicant objected to the court’s decision regarding his request for legal aid. On 31 May 2004 the Administrative Court rejected his objection. The court stated that its decisions regarding legal fees were final.
On 2 June 2004 the court once more informed the applicant that he had to pay the required fees in order to continue the proceedings.
On 15 July 2004 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant did not pay the required legal fees.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to court had been violated by excessive court fees and by the Malatya Administrative Court’s rejection of his request for legal aid.
Relying on Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant alleged that his rights to home and property had been breached, in that he had not been permitted to move back to his village for nine years.
The applicant submitted under Article 13 of the Convention that the Administration had remained ineffective throughout the nine-year period and had not conducted an inspection despite his repeated requests to be allowed to move back to his village.
He finally argued under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been subjected to discrimination due to his origins.
THE LAW
1.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the court fees were excessive and that the domestic court had refused his request for legal aid.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.
2.  The Court has also examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints as submitted by him. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that those complaints 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 part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning his right of access to court;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Sally Dollé	Françoise Tulkens 
	Registrar	President