SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18741/04
Bedii Burak BOZBEY against Turkey
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:
András Sajó, President,
Helen Keller,
Robert Spano, 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 case
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. Certain procedures lasted several years, and some are still pending before the domestic courts. The details of the applications appear in the table below.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
4. A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).
COMPLAINT
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.
THE LAW
6. Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the present cases, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single decision.
7. 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.
8. 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 maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission: this ground had also been recognised by the Court in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).
9. 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, cited above, the Court declared a new 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 length of proceedings.
10. 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 this type which had already been communicated to the Government.
11. However, taking account of the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicants’ 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. It therefore concludes that the complaint of the excessive length of the civil proceedings must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Rifat Demir v. Turkey, no. 24267/07, § 35, 4 June 2013; and Yiğitdoğan v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 72174/10, § 59, 3 June 2014).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares inadmissible the applications.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 2015.
Abel CamposAndrás Sajó
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
18741/04
19/01/2004
Bedii Burak BOZBEY
1966 -Isparta
Hıdır YILDIZ
Gelendost Cadastral Court
1996/015 E. 1999/001 K.
1997/001 E. 1999/004 K.
Proceedings were still pending before the Court of Cassation.
48454/06
22/11/2006
Nesrin YILMAZ
1950 - Ankara
Gökçen ZORCU
Ankara Administrative Court
2003/456 E. 2003/599 K.
The proceedings became final on 7 July 2006.
20637/07
04/05/2007
Binali ÇINAR
1932 - Ardahan
Metin Taylan ÖZYILMAZ
Posof Magistrates’ Court
1996/73 E 2005/32 K. The
case was subsequently transferred to the Posof Civil Court where the proceedings were still pending
28997/08
09/06/2008
İbrahim GÜNEY
1949 - İstanbul
Metin FİLORİNALI
Küçükçekmece Civil Court
2006/555 E. 2006/592K.
The proceedings became final on
4 December 2007.
38848/08
04/08/2008
Ercüment ÖZTÜRK
1961 - Eskişehir
Erdinç TOKLU
Eskişehir Administrative Court
2003/169 E. 2004/1306 K.
Supreme Administrative Court
2005/1468 E. 2007/5334 K.
Rectification proceedings were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy