Çevikel v. Turkey

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 207

May 2017

Çevikel v. Turkey - 23121/15

Judgment 23.5.2017 [Section II]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Unreasonable length of proceedings for compensation for terrorist acts: violation

Facts – On 21 December 2006 the applicant brought proceedings against the national authorities to obtain compensation for damage she alleged to have sustained from acts of terrorism or counter-terrorism measures. After going before the commission set up under Law no. 5233 and the administrative courts, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, which handed down its decision on 14 April 2015.

The applicant complained before the Court of the length of the proceedings before the compensation commission, the administrative courts and the Constitutional Court.

Law – Article 6 § 1

(a) Applicability – The dispute concerning compensation for the alleged damage resulting from acts of terrorism or counter-terrorism measures was pecuniary in nature and without any doubt concerned a civil right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Following the proceedings before the commission set up under Law no. 5233 and the administrative courts, the applicant had lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, alleging that her Constitutional and Convention rights had been breached as a result of those proceedings.

If the Constitutional Court had found one or more violations of the applicant’s rights under the Constitution and the Convention or its protocols as a result of shortcomings in the proceedings before the commission and the administrative courts, it could have referred the case back to the administrative courts for the proceedings to be reopened; she would then have had a prospect of obtaining appropriate compensation for the alleged damage.

Therefore the Constitutional Court’s decision was directly decisive of the applicant’s civil right. Moreover, even though it had dismissed the applicant’s appeal in a preliminary admissibility procedure, it had nevertheless addressed the applicant’s substantive arguments in its reasoning and in particular had examined in detail whether the administrative courts, in dismissing the applicant’s request for compensation under Law no. 5233, had breached her rights under the Constitution and the Convention or its protocols. Article 6 § 1 thus applied to those proceedings.

(b) Merits – The period to be taken into account had lasted for about eight years and four months, at four levels of jurisdiction.

The proceedings before the administrative courts had lasted for about two years and two months, and the proceedings in the Constitutional Court about one year and four months, so they had not been particularly excessive in length.

However, while acknowledging the commission’s heavy workload and the appropriateness of the measures adopted by the authorities to remedy this problem, those efforts had remained insufficient, since the commission had only started dealing with the applicant’s request after about two years and ten months.

The length of the proceedings had been excessive and had not met the reasonable time requirement.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

(See also Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 12952/87, 23 June 1993)

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy