SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10594/11
Salih TÜRKAN against Turkey
and 14 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications, indicated in the Appendix,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A list of the names of the applicants as well as the case and decision numbers of the impugned proceedings appear in the Appendix.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before the various civil courts or civil proceedings were brought against them before the civil courts. While certain procedures lasted several years, some proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts.
B. Relevant domestic law
A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).
COMPLAINTS
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.
Certain applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing as domestic judicial authorities had erred in assessment of the evidence and establishment of the facts.
Certain applicants also alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the amounts awarded to them had lost their value due to the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given the similarity of the facts and of the legal issues raised.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
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, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...”
The Court observes that the applicants asserted that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of the “reasonable time” requirement in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court found in Müdür Turgut and Others (cited above, §§ 58 and 60) that the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384, insofar as it is, a priori, accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings is a remedy which applicants should make use of. Accordingly, the applicants should avail themselves of the new remedy offered by Law no. 6384.
It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
A. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Certain applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing as the domestic judicial authorities had erred in assessment of the evidence and establishment of the facts. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the applicants complained about the outcome of their proceedings, which, unless it was arbitrary, the Court is unable to examine under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants did not complain, and there is no evidence to suggest, that the domestic courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. In the light of all the material in its possession, the Court considers that in the present case the applicants were able to submit their arguments before courts which offered the guarantees set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and which addressed those arguments in decisions that were duly reasoned and not arbitrary (see, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 23-30, ECHR 1999-I).
It follows that these complaints must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
Having carefully examined certain applicants’ complaints in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that these parts of the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Seçkin ErelPeer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Notes
10594/11
01/12/2010
Salih TÜRKAN
01/01/1940
İzmir
Tahir KALYONCU
Civil Court of General Jurisdiction
E: 2005/323 K: 2009/449
30681/12
25/04/2012
Bekir KOŞUKOĞLU
04/10/1948
İzmir
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 2 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E:2005/304,K:2010/121
30682/12
25/04/2012
Kerime KAHRAMAN
01/01/1952
İzmir
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 2 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E:2005/299, K:2010/120
30683/12
25/04/2012
Muzaffer SAYGILI
22/05/1966
Bursa
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 2 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E:2005/429, K: 2010/122
30688/12
25/04/2012
Ayşegül GÜRSOY
07/03/1962
İzmir
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 3 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, E:2005/280, K:2010/493
30689/12
25/04/2012
Halil MUTLU
15/04/1969
İzmir
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 3 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, E:2005/280, K:2010/493
30691/12
25/04/2012
Aydın ÇAĞLAYAN
01/01/1967
İzmir
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 3 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, E:2005/280, K:2010/493
30692/12
25/04/2012
Seyat HACIOĞLU
17/02/1966
İzmir
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 3 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, E:2005/280, K:2010/493
30694/12
25/04/2012
Murat GÜLER
27/01/1966
Bursa
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 2 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E:2005/290, K:2010/119
44326/12
25/04/2012
Mümün KAHRAMAN
10/06/1966
Bursa
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court(in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726
44327/12
25/04/2012
Muhittin MUTLU
11/03/1962
Bursa
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court(in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726
44328/12
25/04/2012
Berkant SERBEST
06/04/1973
İstanbul
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court(in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726
44329/12
25/04/2012
Zülker AYYILDIZ
01/05/1970
Bursa
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court (in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726
44330/12
25/04/2012
Sabahattin ALİOĞLU
08/05/1963
Bursa
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court(in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726
44331/12
25/04/2012
Recep TOPÇU
27/09/1963
Bursa
Tahir KALYONCU
Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court (in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy