SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41257/04
Sabahattin Engin AKKAYA and others against Turkey
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 February 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Valeriu Griţco, President,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
Georges Ravarani, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications, listed in the appendix,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the cases
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 and the proceedings lasted several years. The details of the applications appear in the table below.
B. Relevant domestic law
4. On 9 January 2013 the Turkish National Assembly enacted Law no. 6384 on the resolution, by means of compensation, of applications lodged with the Court concerning length of judicial proceedings and non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions. The competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014.
COMPLAINTS
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.
6. The applicants raised further complaints relying on Articles 6 § 1, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
A. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
8. 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.
9. 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 further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged loss of value of the amount of the expropriation compensation due to the effects of inflation and the length of the proceedings. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission.
10. 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 ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), the Court declared an 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 depreciation of awards in expropriation cases.
11. 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 that type which had already been communicated to the Government.
12. However, taking into account the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicant’s 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, cited above.
13. In view of the above, the Court concludes that this part of the applications should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies.
B. Other alleged violations of the Convention
14. The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. However, in the light of the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
15. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with the Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares inadmissible the applications.
Done in English and notified in writing on 3 March 2016.
Abel CamposValeriu Griţco
Deputy RegistrarPresident
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
41257/04
10/09/2004
Sabahattin Engin AKKAYA
1947
Bursa
Gülbahar KARADENİZ
1942
Zonguldak
Cemal ERTUĞ
1945
Zonguldak
Ergün BODUR
1944
Zonguldak
Ahmet BÜK
1967
Zonguldak
Zeki YÜKSEL
1948
Zonguldak
Müjde Oglena SALİH
1961
Zonguldak
Sabahattin Engin AKKAYA Bursa
The applicants initiated proceedings before the Zonguldak Bar Association Arbitration Board on 24 March 2003. On 14 December 2006 the case was rejected by the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction for lack of jurisdiction. The decision was served on 7 March 2007.
Final decision: Zonguldak Civil Court of General Jurisdiction 2006/459 E 2006/503 K
19629/06
10/05/2006
TEKNOTES MÜHENDİSLİK İNŞAAT TAAHHÜT TİC. VE SAN. A.Ş.
Ankara
Metin FEYZİOĞLU
Ankara
The case was initiated on 1 May 1998.
The final decision was delivered on 16 November 2005, and notified on 12 December 2005. Final decision: Kırıkkale Civil Court of General Jurisdiction
2000/355 E.
2003/908 K.
4689/07
12/12/2006
GÜMÜŞDERE İNŞAAT TİC. VE SAN. A.Ş.
Ankara
Müslim YILMAZ
Ankara
Final decision; Ankara Civil Court
2003/171 E.
2007/132 K.
The proceedings commenced on 24 March 2003. The final decision was delivered on
23 October 2009.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy