SECOND SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 29643/05
by Türkan ARAS
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 June 2005,
Having regard to the partial decision of 27 May 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Türkan Aras, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bursa. She was represented before the Court by Mr E.H. Özdemir, Ms H. Günaydın and Ms N. Çengel, lawyers practising in Bursa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 2 February 2000 the applicant brought a case before the Bursa Administrative Court.
On 16 November 2000 the Bursa Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's case.
On 26 March 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the administrative court and on 26 October 2004 it rejected the applicant's rectification request. That decision was served on the applicant on 23 December 2004.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complained of the length of the administrative proceedings.
The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit fixed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They argued that the final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, which had been delivered on 26 October 2004, had been deposited with the registry of the first-instance court on 6 December 2004, whereas the applicant had lodged her application with the Court on 24 June 2005, more than six months later.
The applicant did not comment on the Government's allegations.
The Court reiterates that where an applicant is entitled to be served ex officio with a written copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the written judgment (see Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V). The Court, therefore, cannot accept the Government's argument that the six-month time-limit started to run from the date on which the judgment was deposited with the Bursa Administrative Court.
The Court nevertheless considers, in the light of its case-law, that the applicant failed to comply with the six-month rule laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The Court notes that the final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court was served on the applicant on 23 December 2004. The six-month period therefore expired on 23 June 2005. The applicant, however, lodged her application with the Court on 24 June 2005, one day after the expiry of the six-month time-limit (see Otto v. Germany (dec.), no. 21425/06, 10 November 2009).
It follows that the application has been lodged out of time and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy