SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 47130/07
Metin BASMACI and Derya BASMACI
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 November 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 October 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 47130/07) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Turkish nationals, Mr Metin Basmacı and Ms Derya Basmacı (“the applicants”), on 10 October 2007.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms Y. Okyay Evren, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. On 2 November 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.
4. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.
THE FACTS
5. The applicants were born in 1947 and 1982 and live in Eskişehir. They are father and daughter.
6. The building where the applicants were living collapsed as a result of an aftershock which came after the disastrous earthquake occurred on 17 August 1999.
7. The applicants lost two of their family members. Besides, the applicant Metin Basmacı was severely injured.
8. On 14 September 1999 the Eskişehir Public Prosecution Office launched a criminal case before the Eskişehir Assize Court against those involved in the construction of the building on account of reckless endangerment.
9. On an unspecified date the applicant Metin Basmacı applied to the court to become civil party to the case.
10. On 23 January 2003 the Eskişehir Assize Court decided on the case.
11. On 22 September 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.
12. On 16 February 2007 the Eskişehir Assize Court decided on the case.
13. On 11 February 2008 the Court of Cassation dropped the case on account of statutory limitation.
COMPLAINT
14. 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.
THE LAW
15. The Court notes that the Convention does not confer any right, as demanded by the applicant, to “private revenge” or to an actio popularis. Thus, the right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence cannot be asserted independently: it must be indissociable from the victim’s exercise of a right to bring civil proceedings in domestic law, (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §70-75, 12 February 2004, ECHR 2004‑I).
16. The Court reiterates that the applicant joined the criminal proceedings in question as a civil party, but according to his submissions to the Court he did not request compensation from the judicial authorities, nor did he reserve his right to do so until the very end of the proceedings before the national courts.
17. In the light of the above the Court finds that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the circumstances of the present case.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy