FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 32055/96
by Leszek GAWRACZ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 17 May 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrM. Pellonpää, judges,
and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 August 1995 and registered on 27 June 1996,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Leszek Gawracz, is a Polish national, born in 1931 and living in Warsaw, Poland. He is represented before the Court by Mr Ciplak, a lawyer practising in Soma, Turkey.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A.Background
On 26 September 1986 the applicant, who was at the time employed by a Polish construction company called “Megadex” travelled by bus to Izmir. The bus crashed into a truck. As a result of the accident, the applicant sustained serious injuries to his left leg and certain injuries to his left eye, eyelid and eye socket. He was admitted to Soma Hospital and then taken to Manisa Clinical Hospital, where he underwent an operation. In view of the seriousness of the injuries to his leg, the lower part was eventually amputated. On 19 October 1986 the applicant left Turkey and then received further treatment in Polish hospitals.
Later, on an unknown date in 1986, the Turkish authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the drivers involved in the accident. Those proceedings were pending in the Soma Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction (Soma Asliye Ceza Mahkenesi) from 26 September 1986 to 26 May 1992. They were terminated by a judgment of the Court of Cassation (Yargitay) on 31 January 1993.
B.Civil proceedings for damages instituted by the applicant
On 28 May 1988 the applicant, through his lawyer, sued seven individuals and two Turkish companies called, respectively, “Mengerler AS” and “Baska Sigorta Sti” in the Soma Civil Court of General Jurisdiction (Soma Asliye Hukuk Mahkenesi), seeking damages for the injuries sustained in the accident and loss of earnings. He requested the court to award him damages in the total sum of 21,760, 832 Turkish liras.
On 30 January 1989 the court decided to determine jointly the claim submitted by the applicant and a claim lodged by certain M.-A. P., since both respective proceedings, which were pending concurrently, concerned the same defendants and were filed by the persons injured in the same accident.
On 13 September 1990 the court obtained an expert report which determined that the defendants were liable for damages arising from the accident. Later, the court ordered that evidence from an expert be obtained in order to assess the value of the damages to which the applicant and his co-plaintiff were entitled. On an unknown date N.K., an expert, submitted his report to the court. He found that it was not possible to evaluate properly the value of the damages sought because documentary evidence relating to such circumstances as the plaintiffs’ health and loss of their earnings needed to be supplemented.
Subsequently, the court ordered that fresh evidence be obtained from another expert in order to assess the value of the claims submitted by the plaintiffs. On 3 February 1994 E.O., an expert, submitted his report to the court.
On 21 February 1994 the court held a hearing and served copies of the expert’s report on the parties. The hearing was adjourned because certain authorities had failed to provide the court with documents relating to the financial situation of the defendants.
On 25 April 1994 the court held the next hearing. The plaintiffs did not in principle contest the expert’s report. The defendants submitted that the expert had incorrectly established the value of the claims because he had based his conclusions on the exchange rates applicable on the date of the report, whereas he should have taken into account the rates applicable on the date of the accident. The court adjourned the hearing and ordered the expert to submit a fresh report, containing corrections to the exchange rates. The report was submitted on 3 May 1994.
On 4 May 1994 the court held a hearing and heard the parties’ final submissions. On 11 May 1994 it gave judgment partly granting the applicant’s claim.
On 5 June 1994 the applicant appealed against that judgment.
On 26 September 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance judgment.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 28 May 1988 and ended on 26 September 1995, when the Court of Cassation delivered the final judgment. They therefore lasted about seven years and four months.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject that allegation.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy