SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 24684/09 and 36791/09
Fatma Şükran UĞURGELEN against Turkey
and Müslüm ERARIBURNU against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 17 April 2009 and 12 June 2009 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant in the first case (no. 24684/09), Ms Fatma Şükran Uğurgelen, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1932 and lives in Çanakkale. She was represented before the Court by Mr S. Aydın, a lawyer practising in Çanakkale.
2. The applicant in the second case (no. 36791/09), Mr Müslüm Erarıburnu, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul.
3. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the cases
4. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
5. In the first application, the applicant initiated civil proceedings on 28 December 1995. On 5 November 2007 the Çanakkale Magistrates’ Court delivered its decision (no. 2007/542 E–2007/1052 K). According to the information in the case file, the proceedings were still pending before the Court of Cassation at the date of introduction of the application.
6. In the second application, the applicant initiated administrative proceedings on 17 July 2002. On 31 May 2005 the Istanbul Administrative Court delivered its judgment (No. 2002/773 E, 2005/1412 K). On 23 March 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment (no. 2005/6023 E–2007/1655 K). The applicant’s rectification request was further rejected on 19 December 2008 (no. 2007/7213 E–2008/8409 K).
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
7. 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
8. 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.
9. The applicant in the first case also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy for lenghty judicial proceedings in national level.
THE LAW
10. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court decides to join them in a single decision.
A. The alleged violation of the Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
11. 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.
12. 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 applicants 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).
13. 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.
14. 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 prior to the entry into force of the new remedy.
15. However, taking account of the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicants’ 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 (see Rifat Demir v. Turkey, no. 24267/07, § 35, 4 June 2013; and Yiğitdoğan v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 72174/10, § 59, 3 June 2014).
B. The alleged violation of the Article 13 of the Convention
16. The applicant in the first application further complained that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law concerning lengthy judicial proceedings.
17. The Court recalls that the Compensation Commission established by Law No. 6384 provides for a remedy to the applicants within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention to complain about the length of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention relating to all applications pending before the Court submitted before 23 September 2012 (Turgut and Others, cited above, § 59; and İnan v. Turkey (dec.) no. 14129/11, §§ 43-46, 4 November 2014).
18. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 8 October 2015.
Abel CamposNebojša Vučinić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy