SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 27608/07
by ORFE TURİZM PAZARLAMA VE DIŞ TİCARET A.Ş.
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Danutė Jočienė, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 June 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Orfe Turizm Pazarlama ve Dış Ticaret A.Ş., is a company operating in Antalya. The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr İ. Yalçın, a lawyer practising in Antalya. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 December 1994 the applicant lodged a case with the Ayvalık Court of First Instance against H.T, C.Ö., F.G., C.Ö and Z.S. for annulment of the title deeds under the latter’s name.
On 8 June 2000 the court granted the applicant’s request in part.
On 12 April 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 8 June 2000.
On 21 April 2005 the court partially granted the applicant’s request.
On 20 April 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 21 April 2005.
On 27 November 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.
On 21 December 2006 the applicant was notified of the decision dated 27 November 2006.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable. It further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that it had been denied a fair hearing as the outcome of the proceedings had been unfavourable.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the final domestic decision in the present case was notified to the applicant on 21 December 2006, whereas the application was introduced with the Court on 29 June 2007, that is, more than six months later. It follows that the application was introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosDanutė Jočienė
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy