AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 27695/95
by Mine ASÇIOGLU
against Turkey
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:
MM J.-C. GEUS, President
M.A. NOWICKI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Mrs G.H. THUNE
MM F. MARTINEZ
I. CABRAL BARRETO
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 1 May 1995 by
Mine ASÇIOGLU against Turkey and registered on 26 June 1995 under file
No. 27695/95;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, who was born in 1964, is a Turkish citizen
resident in Antalya.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may
be summarised as follows.
On 7 December 1991 while the applicant was travelling from
Antalya to Ankara by bus, there was a traffic accident in which she was
heavily injured losing the sight of her left eye.
The applicant started compensation proceedings before the Ankara
Commercial Court against the responsible transportation company.
On 17 September 1994 the Ankara Commercial Court, taking into
account the economic situation of the country, the current high prices
and the social status of the parties, granted the applicant 400,000,000
Turkish Lira for her non-pecuniary damage with interest at the rate of
48% per year running from the date of the accident.
The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation claiming that
the amount of compensation awarded was too low and challenged the
interest rate applied.
On 3 October 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of
the Ankara Commercial Court on the ground that the official rate of
interest, which should be applied in the instant case, was 54.5% per
year, as requested by the applicant. The Court of Cassation also
confirmed the judgment of the first instance court as regards the
amount of the compensation. The case was referred back to the Ankara
Commercial Court which applied the decision of 3 October 1994 of the
Court of Cassation.
The applicant applied for a rectification of this decision on the
ground that the Court of Cassation had failed to give reasons for its
decision concerning the amount of compensation. On 20 January 1995 the
Court of Cassation rejected her application referring to the contents
of the file and the reasoning of the first instance court's decision.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
that her right to a fair trial was breached as the national courts
granted her insufficient compensation and applied an inadequate rate
of interest.
2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention that the decision of the Court of Cassation was not reasoned
and therefore her right to a fair trial was violated.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention that her right to a fair trial was breached as the national
courts decided to grant her an insufficient amount of compensation and
interest rate.
The Commission may leave open the question whether the applicant
has exhausted domestic remedies for her loss due to the insufficient
interest rate since in any event her complaint must be rejected for the
following reasons.
The Commission recalls that under Article 19 (Art. 19) of the
Convention, its sole task is to ensure the observance of the
engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the
Convention. It is not competent to examine applications concerning
errors of law or fact allegedly committed by the competent national
authorities, which are competent in the first place to interpret and
apply domestic law (No. 25062/94, Dec. 18.10.1995, D.R. 83, p. 77).
In this case, the Commission first notes that the judgments of
the Ankara Commercial Court and the Court of Cassation were given on
the basis of domestic law and the particular circumstances of the case.
The Commission considers that the applicant's complaint concerns the
national courts' evaluation of the facts and evidence and
interpretation of domestic law.
The Commission also observes that the interest rate has been
reviewed by the Court of Cassation in accordance with the applicant's
request.
Therefore the Commission finds no evidence or basis on which to
conclude that the courts, in establishing the facts or interpreting the
law, acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.
Consequently, there is no appearance of a violation of the
applicant's rights under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention
and this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention that the Court of Cassation's decision
concerning the amount of compensation was not reasoned.
The Commission accepts that under specific circumstances the
absence of reasons in a court decision might raise an issue as to the
fairness of the procedure which is guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention. It refers, however, to the case of Hiro
Balani v. Spain (cf., Eur. Court HR, judgment of 9 December 1994,
Series A, no. 303, pp. 23-37, para. 27), where the Court held that,
while Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) obliges the courts to give reasons
for their judgments, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed
answer to every argument. The extent to which this duty to give reasons
applies may vary according to the nature of the decision. It is
moreover necessary to take into account, inter alia, the diversity of
the submissions that a litigant may bring before the courts and the
differences existing in the Contracting States with regard to statutory
provisions, customary rules, legal opinion and the presentation and
drafting of judgments. That is why the question whether a court has
failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, deriving from Article
6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, can only be determined in the light of
the circumstances of the case.
In the present case it is clear from the two decisions of the
Court of Cassation that the court in fact considered the applicant's
arguments and found no objection to the reasoning in the Ankara
Commercial Court's judgment. The Commission considers that in these
circumstances there is no appearance of the proceedings having been
unfair and contrary to the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)
of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy