THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 49275/99
by Altan KARAKULLUKÇU
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 October 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrG. Ress, President,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrR. Türmen,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja,
MrsA. Gyulumyan, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 April 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Altan Karakullukçu, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Elazığ. The application was initially lodged with the Court by the applicant's father acting as his legal guardian on his behalf since the applicant was a minor at the time of the events. Following his majority the applicant expressed his wish to pursue the case on 17 June 2004. He is represented before the Court by Mr Cahit Hasdemir, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 June 1991 the applicant was seriously injured from an explosion of a bomb placed in the garden of the Military lodgements in Gaziosmanpaşa district of Istanbul. He was ten years old at the time of the events.
On 10 February 1992 the applicant's father acting as his legal guardian filed a petition with the Ministry of Internal Affairs requesting compensation for the damage the applicant had sustained. The Ministry of Internal Affairs rejected the request on 15 April 1992.
On 3 June 1992 the applicant's legal guardian brought an action for compensation before the Istanbul Administrative Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
On 4 December 1994 the Istanbul Administrative Court considered that there was neither fault nor negligence attributable to the authorities and dismissed the case.
On 16 November 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The court referred to the doctrine of “social risk”, which did not require the establishment of any causal link between the harmful action and the loss, and reasoned that the damage caused by the terrorism should be shared by the society as a whole in accordance with the principles of “justice” and “social state”.
On 15 March 1996 the Ministry of Internal Affairs requested the rectification of the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court.
On 9 March 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for rectification of judgment.
On 30 September 1998 the Istanbul Administrative Court decided to abide with the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court.
On 17 February 1999 the Istanbul Administrative Court awarded the applicant an amount of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage with legal interest running from 18 February 1992.
On 30 April 1999 the judgment became final.
On 18 September 2000 the applicant was paid the due amount.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the length of the civil proceedings was excessive.
The applicant submits under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention that everyone's right to life is protected by law and that everyone has the right to liberty and security of persons.
The applicant contends under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention that every one has the right to an application in respect of their Convention grievances.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains, without invoking any particular Article of the Convention, that the length of the civil proceedings was excessive.
The Court considers that this part of the complaint should be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court considers that it cannot on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of them to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant submits that everyone's right to life is protected by law and that everyone has the right to liberty and security of persons. He further contends that every one has the right to an application in respect of their Convention grievances. He invokes Articles 2, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
The Court observes that the applicant's complaint as laid out in the application form concerns the length of the compensation proceedings before the administrative courts. In this connection, the Court points out that the applicant has contented himself to invoke the aforementioned Articles without giving any further explanations.
Moreover, the Court considers that the applicant was neither deprived of life, nor do the facts complained of amount to a deprivation of liberty falling under Article 5 of the Convention (see Jancova v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 51233/99, 8 October 2002). The Court considers furthermore that it cannot be held that the domestic law and practice failed in the circumstances of this case to ensure effective respect for the applicant's right to physical and moral integrity within the meaning of “private life” as referred to and guaranteed by Article 8 in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention since the applicant had the opportunity to have his claims examined by the domestic courts and was awarded an amount of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage in respect of the damage he had sustained by the explosion of the bomb.
In light of the above, the Court considers these part of the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the civil proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy