SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GANİMET TAŞKIN v. TURKEY
(Application no. 17993/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 October 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ganimet Taşkın v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 17993/09) 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 a Turkish national, Ms Ganimet Taşkın (“the applicant”), on 11 March 2009.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. A. Söyler, a lawyer practising in Izmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. On 2 November 2010 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Izmir.
5. The applicant’s husband died in a car accident in 2001. Subsequently, on 20 July 2001 she initiated proceedings before the Izmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, claiming compensation from those responsible for the accident.
6. On 18 June 2007 the Izmir Civil Court decided in favour of the applicant.
7. On 28 May 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court and on 9 October 2008 it rejected the defendant party’s request for rectification.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
8. 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, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
9. The Government contested that argument. They maintained that the impugned proceedings could not be considered to have been excessively long in view of the complexity of the case, the difficulties in collecting evidence and the notification process. They concluded therefore that there had been no delay in the proceedings that could be attributable to the State.
10. The period to be taken into consideration began on 20 July 2001 and ended on 9 October 2008. It thus lasted seven years and two months for two levels of jurisdiction.
11. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
12. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §§ 42-46, ECHR 2000‑VII, and Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 26-29, 16 July 2009).
13. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
15. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub PopovićDeputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy