Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)277[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Mesutoğlu against Turkey
(Application No. 36533/04, judgment of 14/10/2008, final on 14/01/2009)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns unfairness of certain administrative proceedings in that domestic courts interpreted provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure in so excessively formalistic way that the applicants were denied their right of access to a court (violation of Article 6§1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that within the time-limit set the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- general measures preventing, similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)277
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Mesutoğlu against Turkey
The case concerns the unfairness of certain proceedings before administrative courts in that domestic courts interpreted provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure in such an excessively formalistic way that the applicants were denied their right of access to a court (violation of Article 6§1).
In June 2000, the applicants sued the municipality of Elaziğ for damages before the first‑instance court of that town, alleging the municipal authorities’ responsibility in relation to a traffic accident which caused the death of the father of one of the applicants and the son of the other.
In November 2000, the first-instance court declared that it was not competent to try the case ratione materiae and ordered the transfer of the dossier to the Malatya Administrative Court. In December 2002, the administrative court declared, at a late stage in the proceedings, that the applicant’s suit was inadmissible. It considered that Article 9 of the Code of Administrative Procedure did not provide that an administrative court might be seised of a case on the basis of the transfer of a dossier from a civil court following a conclusion of incompetence ratione materiae, and that the applicants should themselves have brought their appeal directly before the competent administrative court.
The European Court considered that such a strict interpretation of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure had prevented the applicants from obtaining an examination of the merits of their case by a competent court and had denied them their right of access to justice.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-----
3 000 EUR
----
3 000 EUR
Paid on 13/04/2009
b) Individual measures
It is possible for the applicant to request the reopening of domestic proceedings in accordance with Article 53/1(ı) of the Law on Administrative Procedure. This provision allows the reopening of proceedings following a violation found by the European Court.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
The European Court’s judgment was translated into Turkish, sent out to the high courts and relevant authorities, and published on the official web site of the Turkish Ministry of Justice (). The Turkish authorities considered that the problem revealed by this judgment was an isolated one and that the publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would therefore be sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future. Therefore, no further general measures appear necessary.
III.Conclusions
The government considers that no individual measure is required apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy