Published on 8 January 2024
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 50185/17
Sefa ÇETİNKAYA and Others
against Türkiye
lodged on 7 June 2017
communicated on 4 December 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the non-enforcement of a final domestic judgment which awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation to the applicants with interest running from 20 October 1998, to be paid by the defendant Bor-Çukurkuyu Municipality (“Municipality”) (see the appendix for details). The applicants had previously lodged an application with the Court (application no. 75534/11) which has been declared inadmissible. In so far as they had complained about the non-execution of the final judgment in question, the Court found that they had failed to avail themselves of the new remedy before the Compensation Commission (the “Commission”) established by Law No. 6384 (see Eren and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [Committee], no. 3950/08 and 645 others, 17 September 2013).
On 10 April 2013 the applicants applied to the Commission which awarded them non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 9,000 Turkish liras (TRY) on account of the failure of the Municipality to enforce the judgment in question. It appears that the Commission also notified the defendant Municipality that they should enforce the relevant domestic court decision by paying the judgment debts. Nevertheless, as the Municipality did not comply with the decision of the Commission, the applicants applied to the Constitutional Court. In a decision of 12 April 2017, the Constitutional Court declared the application inadmissible reasoning that the applicants could not be considered as victims of the alleged breach as they had received compensation from the Commission. Since the judgment in favour of the applicants remains unpaid, they complain of a violation of Articles 6, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Does the non-execution of the judgment of the Bor Civil Court of General Jurisdiction (file no. 2004/51 E. and 2005/33 K.) that awarded compensation to the applicants give rise to a breach of their rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Dildar v. Turkey, no. 77361/01, 12 December 2006; and Çakır and Others v. Turkey, no. 25747/09, 4 June 2013)?
2. Has there been a violation of the Article 13 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case in the light of the non-execution of the judgment of the Bor Civil Court of General Jurisdiction?
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
Application no. and date of Introduction
Applicant’s name, date of birth, place of residence
Details of domestic court decision
Amount of due judgment debt that remains unpaid
50185/17
Sefa ÇETİNKAYA
1967
Niğde
Cansu ÇETİNKAYA
1993
Niğde
Caner Mert ÇETİNKAYA
1990
Niğde
Bor Civil Court of General Jurisdiction
8 February 2005
(file no. 2004/51E and 2005/33K)
TRY 500 in respect of non-pecuniary and TRY 500 in respect of pecuniary damage to each applicant
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy