SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5426/09
Reşit SÜZER against Turkey
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 February 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Valeriu Griţco, President,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
Georges Ravarani, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Turkish 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. On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts. Certain procedures lasted several years, and one case is still pending before the domestic courts. The details of the applications appear in the attached table.
B. Relevant domestic law
4. A description of the domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).
COMPLAINTS
5. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national courts had not been concluded within a reasonable time.
6. In application 5426/09, the applicant complained that he had suffered financial loss as a result of the length of the proceedings.
7. In application no. 33302/09, the applicant maintained that the rectification and appeal requests examined by the same judges of the Court of Cassation had constituted a breach of Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
9. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
10. 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 (see Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).
11. 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 (see Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (dec.), 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.
12. 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.
13. 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. 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.
14. As regards the remaining complaints, the Court holds that in the light of the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do 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,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 2 March 2017.
Hasan BakırcıValeriu Griţco
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application No.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Date and Reference Numbers
of the Judgments Given by the Domestic Courts
5426/09
19/12/2008
Reşit SÜZER
01/04/1968
Şanlıurfa
Ahmet TÜYSÜZ
Bozova Civil Court
2009/142E-2009/320K.
There are several judgments delivered by domestic courts. This is the last one concerning the applicant`s case.
17856/09
17/03/2009
Yaşar ÇELİK
02/01/1957
Rize
Yakup Şekip OKUMUŞOĞLU
Çamlıhemşin Civil Court 2005/8E-2005/11K.
Became final on 9 May 2005.
33302/09
21/05/2009
Zeynep DEVECİ
18/11/1969
Istanbul
Füsun Selma SARICI
5th Chamber of Istanbul Civil Court 2011/418E-2012/82K.
Became final on 25 April 2013.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy