SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 9087/03
by Süleyman GÜLER
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 January 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Süleyman Güler, is a Turkish national who was born in 1937 and lives in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 June 1982 the applicant concluded a contract with a certain A.Ş.G., according to which the latter agreed to sell some land to the applicant. Subsequently, A.Ş.G. transferred the ownership of only part of the land to the applicant.
On 3 August 1987 A.Ş.G. died.
On 18 July 1995 the applicant lodged a case with the Silivri Magistrate’s Court, requesting his registration as the owner of the whole plot. He claimed that he had paid the full value of the whole plot and that A.Ş.G., and subsequently his heirs, had failed to respect their contractual obligations.
On 26 June 1996 A.Ş.G.’s heirs brought a counter-claim against the applicant, requesting the annulment of the contract and claiming that the applicant had not acted in good faith.
On an unspecified date the two cases were joined.
On 26 April 2000 the Silivri Magistrate’s Court gave judgment, dismissing the applicant’s request.
On 7 November 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 26 April 2000, holding that the first-instance court’s decision pronounced during its last hearing was in contradiction with the written judgment.
On 12 April 2001 the Silivri Magistrate’s Court granted the applicant’s request and ordered that his registration as the owner of several plots of land in accordance with the terms of the contract of 24 June 1982.
On 25 September 2001 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the first-instance court’s judgment. It held that the applicant had not fulfilled his obligations arising from the contract of 24 June 1982 and that, therefore, the Magistrate’s Court’s decision to transfer all the land had been erroneous.
The applicant requested rectification of the decision of 25 September 2001.
On 28 December 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed his request holding that, pursuant to Article 440 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court of Cassation’s decisions, following the Magistrate’s Courts judgments, could not be rectified.
On 14 May 2002 the Silivri Magistrate’s Court gave its third judgment in the case. It dismissed the applicant’s case and annulled the contract of 24 June 1982, a decision upheld by the Court of Cassation on 15 October 2002.
On 27 November 2002 the applicant requested that the decision of 15 October 2002 be rectified. On an unspecified date, this request was dismissed.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had not been concluded within a reasonable time. He further maintained, under the same provision, that the national courts had committed errors of law. The applicant finally complained that he had been unable to have access to the remedy for rectification of the Court of Cassation’s decision.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the civil proceedings had been excessive.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. Under the same provision, the applicant further submitted that the national courts had erred in their assessment of the circumstances of the case.
The Court recalls at the outset its “fourth instance” doctrine (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29, ECHR 1999-I). Having regard to the materials submitted by the applicant, it considers that the applicant has failed to lay the basis of an arguable claim that any of the procedural guarantees contained in Article 6 were breached in the case.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
3. The applicant finally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been unable to have access to the remedy for rectification of the Court of Cassation’s decision.
The Court reiterates that this provision neither guarantees a right of appeal, nor a right to the rectification of a decision (see Des Fours Walderode v. The Czech Republic (dec.), no. 40057/98, 4 March 2003).
It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged excessive length of civil proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy