SANCAK A OSTATNÍ proti Turecku

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 46528/10
Fatma SANCAK against Turkey

and 13 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 September 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Atilla Nalbant, 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 is set out in the appendix. Additionally, 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 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings.

Certain applicants also alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention that the amounts awarded to them 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 ((dec.), 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 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.

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 also complained under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome and the alleged unfairness of the proceedings. In so far as this complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‑I). In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicants’ submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary.

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.

Atilla Nalbant Peer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX