SECOND SECTION
CASE OF TETİK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
(Applications nos. 25885/19 and 37 others)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 March 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tetik and Others v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Egidijus Kūris, President,
Pauliine Koskelo,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications 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 the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) represented by Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice, co-Agent of the Republic of Turkey before the European Court of Human Rights;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 22 February 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applications concern the non-enforcement of domestic courts’ decisions despite the Compensation Commission’s findings of breach of the applicants’ right to a fair trial.
2. In 2008, 2009 and 2010 the applicants were awarded compensation for their receivables arising from labour agreements with the Yüksekova Municipality (“the Municipality”) in three sets of civil proceedings before the Yüksekova Civil Court of First Instance. The details of the proceedings are set out in Appendix 2.
3. The compensation amounts awarded by the Yüksekova Civil Court of First Instance to the applicants were not paid except for the compensation awarded in the first set of proceedings brought by the applicants in application no. 26026/19.
4. On different dates in 2011, 2012 and 2013 the applicants applied to the Court complaining of the non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions in their favour.
5. In 2013 the Court held that their applications were inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies due to the applicants’ failure to exhaust the Compensation Commission, domestic remedy established under Law no. 6384 which provides redress for complaints concerning, inter alia, non‑enforcement of domestic remedies.
6. In 2014, the Compensation Commission awarded to the applicants non‑pecuniary damage for the excessive length of proceedings. It further transmitted its decision to the Municipality, requesting it to execute the judicial decisions in question.
7. In the same year, the applicants also applied to the Constitutional Court complaining about the Municipality’s failure to enforce the relevant judicial decisions despite the decision of the Compensation Commission.
8. In July 2018, as the applications were pending before the Constitutional Court, a provision empowering the Compensation Commission established under Law no. 6384 to deal with the applications pending before the Constitutional Court, concerning, inter alia, non-enforcement complaints were added to Law no. 6384.
9. In the same year the Constitutional Court found the applicants’ applications inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, namely the Compensation Commission.
10. On unspecified dates, some minor parts of the receivables were paid to some of the applicants.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS11. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 OF THE CONVENTION12. The applicants complain of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They rely expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
13. The Government firstly argued that because some of the compensation amounts were partially paid to them, the applicants lost their victim status, at the very least in respect of the portions paid.
14. The Government secondly claimed that the applications were abusive on account of the failure of the applicants to inform the Court of the said partial payments made by the domestic authorities.
15. The Government thirdly maintained that the applications had been inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because the applicants failed to apply to the Compensation Commission, established by Law no. 6384, after the Constitutional Court had found their applications inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
16. The Court observes that the applicants had already applied to the Compensation Commission before lodging their applications with the Constitutional Court. However, despite the Compensation Commission’s findings, the decisions of the Yüksekova Civil Court of First Instance awarding the applicants compensation had still not been fully enforced.
17. Having examined all the material submitted to it and considering its case-law (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II), the Court considers that the applications are not inadmissible on any grounds and that the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.
18. There has therefore been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
19. Each of the applicants claimed 200,000 euros (EUR), in respect of pecuniary damage, corresponding to the potential financial benefits they had been deprived of on account of the non-payment of the amounts awarded by the domestic courts.
20. As regards non-pecuniary damage, each applicant claimed that he had suffered distress and hardship on account of the non-payment of the domestic judgment debts and requested EUR 50,000.
21. The applicants further claimed EUR 500,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
22. The Government requested the Court not to rule on just satisfaction because the Compensation Commission was now entitled to examine just satisfaction claims in applications where the Court has found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention but has not ruled on the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention or has decided to reserve the question (Kaynar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 21104/06 and 2 others, § 64-78, 7 May 2019).
23. The Court considers that the respondent Government should ensure that the domestic judgments in the appended table, are executed by the administration in full by closing the enforcement proceedings at the bailiff`s offices (İcra Müdürlükleri) which had been initiated by the applicants (Vlaho v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], no.15676/20, 10 December 2020).
24. The Court further considers that the applicants must have suffered some non-pecuniary damage which cannot be sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation alone. Consequently, taking into account the circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the applicants have already been awarded compensation (see paragraph 10 above), and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards for each of the applications EUR 2 000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damages.
25. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award jointly to the applicants EUR 3 000 covering costs and expenses.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that the applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non‑enforcement of domestic decisions;Holds respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2 000 (two thousand euros) for each application, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3 000 (three thousand euros) jointly to applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 March 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Egidijus Kūris
Deputy Registrar President
Appendix 1 – List of cases
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Nationality
1.
25885/19
Tetik and Others v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Hasan TETİK
1955
Turkish
Sürahi TETİK
1962
Turkish
Binevş TETİK
1983
Turkish
Yeliz TETİK
1989
Turkish
Zozan TETİK
1993
Turkish
Şehriban TETİK
1995
Turkish
Fahrettin TETİK
1984
Turkish
Siti ÖNER
1978
Turkish
Selvi KOYU
1986
Turkish
Nurettin TETİK
1997
Turkish
2.
26026/19
Çiftçi and Others v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Nazime ÇİFTÇİ
1963
Turkish
Feride ÇİFTÇİ
1985
Turkish
Harun ÇİFTÇİ
1986
Turkish
Abdullah ÇİFTÇİ
1987
Turkish
Abidin ÇİFTÇİ
1990
Turkish
Kamile ÇİFTÇİ YURĞUN
1991
Turkish
Muhsin ÇİFTÇİ
1993
Turkish
Cemile ÇİFTÇİ
1996
Turkish
3.
26435/19
Ertunç and Others v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Gülüzar ERTUNÇ
1946
Turkish
Güler ERTUNÇ
1979
Turkish
Nazlı ERTUNÇ HEZER
1987
Turkish
Kadriye ERTUNÇ NUYAN
1986
Turkish
Abdullah ERTUNÇ
1981
Turkish
Abdulsettar ERTUNÇ
1970
Turkish
4.
26485/19
Kömür and Others v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Erdem KÖMÜR
1990
Turkish
Nazime KÖMÜR
1967
Turkish
Çiğdem KÖMÜR AYTONĞ
1998
Turkish
Ümit KÖMÜR
1992
Turkish
Tuğba KÖMÜR
1996
Turkish
İbrahim KÖMÜR
2000
Turkish
5.
26960/19
Şatır v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Arafat ŞATIR
1957
Turkish
6.
27370/19
Dayan v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Şükrü DAYAN
1965
Turkish
7.
27387/19
Engin v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Abdurrahman ENGİN
1962
Turkish
8.
27390/19
Basmacı v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Adil BASMACı
1965
Turkish
9.
27405/19
Han v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Ali HAN
1948
Turkish
10.
27409/19
Atak v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Mehmet ATAK
1967
Turkish
11.
27415/19
Tinar and Others v. Turkey
19/04/2019
Makbule TİNAR
1957
Turkish
Tarık TİNAR
1977
Turkish
Kudbettin TİNAR
1981
Turkish
Dilek TİNAR
1986
Turkish
Nahide TİNAR
1990
Turkish
Fazilet YAŞAR
1980
Turkish
12.
27433/19
Taş v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Halit TAŞ
1949
Turkish
13.
27463/19
Akdeniz v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Abdülhalik AKDENİZ
1978
Turkish
14.
27468/19
Noyan v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Cibrail NOYAN
1963
Turkish
15.
27473/19
Dikçe v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Abdulaziz DİKÇE
1960
Turkish
16.
27483/19
Temel v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Mehmet TEMEL
1963
Turkish
17.
27499/19
Atsız v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Muhyettin ATSIZ
1962
Turkish
18.
27505/19
Akdeniz v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Ömer AKDENİZ
1960
Turkish
19.
27509/19
Aykut v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Mehmet Emin AYKUT
1960
Turkish
20.
27519/19
Özer v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Mehmet ÖZER
1963
Turkish
21.
27547/19
Aksu v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Ramazan AKSU
1952
Turkish
22.
27551/19
Adar v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Fikret ADAR
1963
Turkish
23.
27589/19
Milas v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Sıddık MİLAS
1946
Turkish
24.
27602/19
Han v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Hamit HAN
1961
Turkish
25.
27605/19
Tokçu v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Abdulmecit TOKÇU
1963
Turkish
26.
27613/19
Dinler v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Ömer DİNLER
1958
Turkish
27.
27616/19
Bayhan v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Hamit BAYHAN
1957
Turkish
28.
27619/19
Yalçın v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Hamdullah YALÇIN
1966
Turkish
29.
27748/19
Yılmaz v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Hurşit YILMAZ
1957
Turkish
30.
28624/19
Tinar v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Hüseyin TİNAR
1963
Turkish
31.
28628/19
Dikçe v. Turkey
30/04/2019
İsmail DİKÇE
1950
Turkish
32.
29545/19
Ak v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Mehmet AK
1957
Turkish
33.
29570/19
Kaplan v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Ali KAPLAN
1954
Turkish
34.
29894/19
Süre v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Selim SÜRE
1956
Turkish
35.
29899/19
Ayhan v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Bedel AYHAN
1949
Turkish
36.
29907/19
Ergül v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Arafat ERGÜL
1947
Turkish
37.
29911/19
Kurt v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Cemal KURT
1974
Turkish
38.
29924/19
Kaya v. Turkey
30/04/2019
Ramazan KAYA
1964
Turkish
Appendix 2 – Information on the domestic proceedings
Application
Previous Application
1st Proceedings
2nd Proceedings
3rd Proceedings
25885/19
77829/11 32466/13
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 20/07/2010
×
26026/19
78272/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 13/09/2010
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 04/07/2010
26435/19
77831/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
×
×
26485/19
77989/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
26960/19
78283/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009
×
27370/19
508/12 32473/13
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 20/07/2010
×
27387/19
78759/11 32470/13
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 20/07/2010
27390/19
78728/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 13/09/2010
27405/19
55962/12
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
27409/19
77833/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
27415/19
509/12
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
×
×
27433/19
77754/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
×
×
27463/19
78774/11 33469/13
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
×
27468/19
77888/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 20/07/2010
27473/19
26029/12
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
×
×
27483/19
77830/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
27499/19
77837/11 32460/13
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 20/07/2010
×
27505/19
77835/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 20/07/2010
27509/19
77834/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 20/07/2010
27519/19
77836/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
27547/19
511/12
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
×
×
27551/19
77758/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
27589/19
513/12
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
27602/19
77825/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
27605/19
78764/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
27613/19
512/12 32471/13
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 13/09/2010
×
27616/19
77832/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
27619/19
77746/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
×
27748/19
77826/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
28624/19
77827/11 32467/13
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
×
28628/19
77828/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
×
×
29545/19
77838/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 13/09/2010
29570/19
78651/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 20/07/2010
29894/19
515/12 32468/13
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 16/07/2010
×
29899/19
78229/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 20/07/2010
29907/19
78310/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
×
×
29911/19
78066/11
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 13/09/2010
29924/19
510/12
Judgment: 28/09/2009
Final on: 02/04/2011
Judgment: 17/07/2008
Final on: 06/03/2009
Judgment: 21/05/2010
Final on: 13/09/2010