Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)224[1]
Karataş et Yıldız contre Turquie
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requêtes nos 4889/05, 4897/05, 24009/05, 33694/05, 37759/05, 42996/06, 43031/06, 43019/06, 43038/06 et 43054/06, arrêt du 16/07/2009, définitif le 16/10/2009)
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées « la Convention » et « la Cour »),
Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2012)895E) ;
Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire :
- de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum ; et
- de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;
Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées ;
Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2012)895E) ;
S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées ;
DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et
DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.
Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Action Report Karataş and Yıldız and Others[2]
Applications nos.4889/05,489/05, 24009/05, 33694/05, 37759/05, 42996/06, 43031/06, 43019/06, 43038/06 and 43054/06
Information submitted by the Turkish Government on 31 January 2012
Case Description
The cases concern excessive length of civil proceedings ( between 15-17 years) on account of the fact that the first instance court judgments in the applicants’ cases could not become final since they were not served to the Treasury for 11 to 13 years delays because of the non-payment of court fees for service, prior to the appellate stage.
B. Individual measures:
1. Just satisfaction:
The just satisfaction amount was paid to the applicants on 22/02/2010 and the relevant documents were submitted to the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the EctHR.
2. Other individual measures:
Since the proceedings have been terminated, no other individual measure is necessary in the present case.
C. General measures:
1. Publication:
This case has been translated into Turkish and published on the official web site of the Ministry of Justice. It is accessible in Turkish, for free, on .
2. Dissemination:
This case has been disseminated to the relevant authorities, namely, the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, the Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice.
3. Other general measures:
Article 302 of the new Code on Civil Proceedings (Law no.6100) entered into force on 12 January 2011 and reads as follows:
“ (1) The parties may obtain the written judgment at any time regardless of whether or not the legal fee of the judgment has been paid.
(2) Non-payment of the remaining legal fees does not prevent the notification or execution of the judgment or the lodging of an appeal against the judgment.
(3) Any other article of the legal Codes, including the Code on Legal Fees (Law no. 492, containing contradictory provisions to this Article, shall not be applied.
(4) The finalisation of the judgment shall be determined with a signature of the judge or President of the court, together with the date and the Court’s seal at the end or the reverse side of the written judgment.’’
Article 302 of the new Code aims at preventing any future similar violations as those found by the Court in the case of Karataş and Yıldız and Others. These provisions clearly indicate that any party is able to request the enforcement or notification of the judgment even if that party can not pay legal fees. The parties will also be able to lodge an appeal against a judgment. In other words, relevant national authorities will not be able to refuse the enforcement or notification requests depending on the lack of payment of legal fees.
The Government knows of no other new cases introduced before the Court with similar complaints that took place after the above-mentioned Article entered into force.
The Government notes that Article 302 of the new Code on Civil Proceedings unequivocally constitutes an effective and sufficient general measure for the execution of the judgment in question.
The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2] En anglais uniquement.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy