SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17554/08
BİRSÖZLER TEKSTİL ÜRÜNLERİ TİC. SAN. LTD. ŞTİ. and Selim BİRSÖZ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 November 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Julia Laffranque, President,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 March 2008,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The first applicant, Birsözler Tekstil Ürünleri Ticaret ve Sanayi Ltd. Ştd is a company registered in Mersin and the second applicant, Mr Selim Birsöz is a Turkish national, who was born in 1961 and he lives in Mersin. They were represented before the Court by Mr H Gürcan, a lawyer practising in Adana.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. Following a dispute arising out of a contract, on 19 June 1997 the applicants initiated proceedings against a company before the Adana Commercial Court. The proceedings ended on 6 July 2007 with the decision of the Court of Cassation. The final decision was served on the applicants on 20 September 2007.
B. Relevant domestic law
5. 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).
COMPLAINTS
6. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive.
7. The applicants further alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair. They also maintained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as a result of the unjust decisions of the domestic courts, their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been breached.
THE LAW
A. Complaint concerning the length of the proceedings
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 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 v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).
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, 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.
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 this type which had already been communicated to the Government.
12. However, taking account of the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the obligation of the applicants 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). It therefore concludes that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
B. Other complaints
13. The applicants alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair. They further maintained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as a result of the unjust decisions of the domestic courts, their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been breached.
14. 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. It follows that this part of the application 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,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 December 2017.
Hasan BakırcıJulia Laffranque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy