YÖYLER A OSTATNÍ proti Turecku

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 10783/07
Ziri YÖYLER and others against Turkey
and 46 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 December 2014 as a Chamber composed of:

Guido Raimondi, President,
Işıl Karakaş,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Helen Keller,
Paul Lemmens,
Egidijus Kūris,
Robert Spano, judges,

and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications, listed in the appendix,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

3. On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts or civil proceedings were brought against them before the civil courts. Certain procedures lasted several years, and some are still pending before the domestic courts.

B. Relevant domestic law

4. 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

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. Some of the applicants alleged that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law.

7. All the applicants raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols.

THE LAW

A. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

8. 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, 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...”

9. The Court observes that the applicants asserted that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of “reasonable time” requirement in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court found in Turgut and Others (cited above, §§ 8 and 60) that the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384, insofar as it is a priori accessible and capable of offering reasonable prospects of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings, constituted a remedy which applicants were required to exhaust for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, the applicants should avail themselves of the new remedy offered by Law no. 6384 (see also Haçikoğlu and others v. Turkey ((dec.) no. 21786/04, 8 April 2014).

10. It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

B. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

11. Some of the applicants complained that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. They relied, in this regard, on Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

12. The Court recalls that it has also held that the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384 provides for an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention for applicants 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, not yet communicated to the respondent Government, submitted before 23 September 2012 (Turgut and Others (cited above, § 59)).

13. 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.

C. Other alleged violations of various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols

14. The applicants invoked various articles of the Convention and its Protocols.

15. The Court considers that it is not at this stage able to determine whether these complaints should be communicated to the Government in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, and adjourns their examination.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy for undue length of proceedings inadmissible;

Decides to adjourn the examination of the remainder of the application.

Stanley Naismith Guido Raimondi
Registrar President

Appendix