Orzeczenia sądów
Opublikowano: www.echr.coe.int

Decyzja
Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka
z dnia 2 czerwca 2015 r.
741/06

UZASADNIENIE

Wstęp

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 741/06

Raif ÇETİN against Turkey

and 5 other applications

(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Nebojša Vučinić, President,

Paul Lemmens,

Egidijus Kūris, judges,

and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications, listed in the appendix,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

Uzasadnienie faktyczne

THE FACTS

1. A list of the applicants, including their names, dates of birth as well as the names of their representatives, is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

3. On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts or criminal proceedings were brought against them before the criminal courts. Certain procedures lasted several years, and some are still pending before the domestic courts. The details of the applications appear in the table below.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

4. A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).

Zarzuty

COMPLAINT

5. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national courts had not been concluded within a reasonable time.

Uzasadnienie prawne

THE LAW

6. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

7. The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. They maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission: this ground had also been recognised by the Court in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).

8. The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others, cited above, the Court declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings.

9. The Court notes that in its decision in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77) it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of this type which had already been communicated to the Government.

10. However, taking account of the Government's preliminary objection with regard to the applicants' failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Turgut and Others. It therefore concludes that the complaint of the excessive length of the civil proceedings must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Rifat Demir v. Turkey, no. 24267/07, § 35, 4 June 2013; and Yiğitdoğan v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 72174/10, § 59, 3 June 2014).

Sentencja

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares inadmissible the applications.

Done in English and notified in writing on 25 June 2015.

Abel Campos

Nebojša Vučinić

Deputy Registrar

President

APPENDIX

No.

Application No.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Date and Reference Numbers

of the Judgments Given

by the Domestic Courts

1.

741/06

22/12/2005

Raif ÇETİN

1969

Istanbul

Bediray ERDOST

İstanbul Assize Court

1999/271 E. 2002/56 K.

upheld by the Court of Cassation on 19 April 2005

2.

39865/06

18/09/2006

Yasin TAŞ

1962

Kırıkkale

Halis BİÇER

Ankara Administrative Court

2004/3488 E. 2004/1954 K.

pending before the Supreme Administrative Court at the date of application

3.

46857/07

17/10/2007

Mehmet UYAR

1960

Bursa

Elif UYAR

1963

Bursa

Mustafa UYAR

1985

Bursa

Hasan SAKARYA

Bursa Administrative Court

2007/551 E. 2007/738 K.

pending before the Supreme Administrative Court at the date of application

4.

51679/07

09/11/2007

Nurgül DOĞAN

1965

Istanbul

Gülizar TUNCER

İstanbul Assize Court

2006/85 E. 2007/71 K.

upheld by the Court of Cassation on 28 September 2009

5.

30096/08

19/06/2008

Yaşar BECCELİ

1945

İzmir

Ahmet SEVER

İzmir Labour Court

2000/659 E. 2007/796 K.

on 13 December 2007

6.

32796/08

24/06/2008

Medeni AYHAN

1968

Ankara

Metin AYHAN

Decision of the Court of Cassation

2007/3337 E 2007/3267 K

on 25 September 2007