SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18379/09
Şemsettin KÜÇÜK
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 March 2009,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Şemsettin Küçük, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1922 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr E. Eraslan, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 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. Following a traffic accident, on 22 January 2002 the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the Istanbul Şişli Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. On 18 December 2007 the court partially accepted the applicant’s claims and awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation to the applicant. On 3 November 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. This decision was notified on the applicant on 19 December 2008.
4. On 13 February 2009 the compensation amount was paid to the applicant.
B. Relevant domestic law
5. A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).
COMPLAINTS
6. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive.
7. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings and alleged that the domestic courts had erred in their evaluation of the facts of the case.
THE LAW
8. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
9. The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. They maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission: this ground had also been recognised by the Court in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).
10. The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a new 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, cited above, 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.
11. The Court notes that in its decision 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.
12. However, taking account of the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicant’s failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Turgut and Others (cited above). It therefore concludes that the complaint of the excessive length of the civil proceedings must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
13. The applicant further complained about the fairness of the domestic proceedings. However, 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 this complaints does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with the Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016.
Hasan BakırcıNebojša Vučinić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy