AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 29593/96
by Aygül SEZER and others
against Turkey
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 20 May 1998, the following members being present:
MM J.-C. GEUS, President
M.A. NOWICKI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Mrs G.H. THUNE
MM F. MARTINEZ
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 7 October 1995 by
Aygül SEZER, Ugur AKDOGAN, Pinar AKDOGAN, Hüseyin AKDOGAN,
Seyhan DEMiR, Bedir AKDOGAN, Naci AKDOGAN, Ömer AKDOGAN and Naciye
AKDOGAN against Turkey and registered on 2 January 1996 under file
No. 29593/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, whose names appear in the annex, are Turkish
citizens. They are represented before the Commission by Mr Hüsnü Öndül,
a lawyer practising in Ankara.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicants,
may be summarised as follows.
On 12 February 1991 the applicants' relative R.A., while doing
his military service in Kirklareli, was killed by his friend D.D., who
belonged to the same military unit.
On 24 November 1992 the Kirklareli Military Court convicted D.D.
of homicide and, taking account of the fact that he had been seriously
provoked by R.A., sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment.
The applicants appealed against the judgment of the Military
Court.
On 9 February 1994 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the
judgment delivered by the Kirklareli Military Court on the ground that
the provocation of the crime had not been serious but only slight.
The Kirklareli Military Court declined jurisdiction in the case
since D.D. had finished his military service and ordered the transfer
of the file to the Kirklareli Assize Court.
The case was still pending before the court at the time of the
introduction of the present application.
In the meantime the applicants instituted compensation
proceedings on 21 July 1992 before the Military High Administrative
Court on the basis of administrative liability for the killing of R.A.
On 30 November 1994 the Military High Administrative Court
delivered its judgment. It ordered the Ministry of Defence to pay as
pecuniary damage 31,000,000 Turkish Lira to Aygül Sezer, the wife of
R.A, 12,000,000 Turkish Lira to Ugur Akdogan, the son of R.A. and
3,000,000 Turkish Lira each to Ömer and Naciye Akdogan, the parents of
R.A. The Court also awarded 3,000,000 Turkish Lira to each of them for
non-pecuniary damage.
On 21 January 1995 the applicants applied to the Military High
Administrative Court for rectification of its judgment dated
30 November 1994 as they considered the amount of the compensation
insufficient.
On 3 April 1995 the Military High Administrative Court rejected
the applicants' request for rectification. This decision was served on
the applicants on 19 April 1995.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
that their right to a fair trial was breached as the national courts
granted them insufficient compensation.
2. The applicants further complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention that the length of the civil proceedings exceeded a
reasonable time.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention that their right to a fair trial was breached as the
national court awarded them insufficient compensation.
The Commission recalls that under Article 19 (Art. 19) of the
Convention, its sole task is to ensure the observance of the
engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the
Convention. It is not competent to examine applications concerning
errors of law or fact allegedly committed by the competent national
authorities, which are competent in the first place to interpret and
apply domestic law (No. 25062/94, Dec. 18.10.1995, D.R. 83, p. 77).
In this case, the Commission notes primarily that the Military
High Administrative Court delivered its judgment on the basis of
domestic law and in view of the particular circumstances of the case
and awarded an amount of compensation to the applicants. The Commission
also considers that the applicants' complaints concern the national
court's evaluation of the facts and the evidence and their
interpretation of domestic law. The Commission finds no basis on which
to conclude that the Military High Administrative Court, in
establishing the facts or interpreting the law, acted in an arbitrary
or unreasonable manner. Therefore, there is no appearance of a
violation by the national courts of the applicants' rights under
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicants further allege that the length of the civil
proceedings exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
The Commission notes that the period to be taken into
consideration began on 21 July 1992, when the applicants brought an
action before the Military High Administrative Court for compensation.
It lasted until 3 April 1995 when the same court rejected the
applicants' request for rectification. The proceedings thus lasted
approximately 2 years and 8 months.
The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of
proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular
circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down
in the established case-law, in particular the complexity of the case
and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities. (Eur.
Court HR, Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey judgment of 8 June 1995, Series
A no. 319, p. 20, para. 59). Furthermore, the Convention organs make
an overall assessment of the length of proceedings in some cases (see
e.g. Eur. Court HR, Cifola v. Italy judgment of 27 February 1992,
Series A no. 231, p. 9, para. 14).
The Commission notes that the applicants' case was dealt by two
levels of jurisdiction in 2 years and 8 months. Moreover, the
applicants have not shown any substantial periods of inactivity
attributable to the judicial authorities.
In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the proceedings
at issue in the present case did not exceed a reasonable time within
the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para.2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
ANNEX
List of the applicants
1. Aygül SEZER,
2. Ugur AKDOGAN,
3. Pinar AKDOGAN,
4. Hüseyin AKDOGAN,
5. Seyhan DEMiR,
6. Bedir AKDOGAN,
7. Naci AKDOGAN,
8. Ömer AKDOGAN
9. Naciye AKDOGAN
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy