SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9639/07
Efil YILDIRIM and others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 December 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Julia Laffranque, President,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 February 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants, Ms Efil Yıldırım, Ms Ferrah Yıldırım and Mr Enes Yıldırım, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1961, 1984 and 1996 respectively and live in Ankara. They are represented before the Court by Mr E. Dost, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 29 December 1999 Mr E.Y., the first applicant’s husband and the father of the remaining applicants, was shot and killed during a fight.
4. Criminal proceedings were initiated against two persons and on 17 October 2000 they were both found guilty of killing Mr E.Y. by the Aksaray Assize Court.
5. In the meantime, on 6 March 2000 the applicants initiated compensation proceedings against accused persons before the Aksaray Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.
6. On 1 March 2005 the first instance court granted the applicants compensation for their pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
7. Subsequently, on 19 December 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court and the case was remitted before the Aksaray Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.
8. According to the latest information in the case file, on 6 June 2007 the Aksaray Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded compensation to the applicants and the proceedings became final on 19 January 2009 with the decision of the Court of Cassation.
B. Relevant domestic law
9. A description of the domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).
COMPLAINTS
10. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national court had not been concluded within a reasonable time.
11. The applicants further alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention that there existed no effective remedy under Turkish law whereby they could challenge the excessive length of the proceedings in dispute.
12. Without relying on any Article of the Convention, the applicants contended that they would not be able to enforce the compensation awarded in their favour.
THE LAW
A. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
13. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
14. The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. They maintained that the applicants had to apply to the Compensation Commission to exhaust the domestic remedies.
15. The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), the Court declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings.
16. The Court notes that in its judgment in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77) it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of this type which had already been communicated to the Government.
17. However, taking account of the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicants’ failure to make use of the domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Turgut and Others (cited above).
18. It therefore concludes that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
B. Remaining complaints
19. The applicants submitted under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy in domestic law whereby they could challenge the excessive length of the proceedings. They further stated that they could not recover the amount of compensation that had been awarded by the domestic courts.
20. In the light of the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
21. It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2018.
Hasan BakırcıJulia Laffranque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy