SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 21815/08 Ä°brahim Halil B Ä° LSEL against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 December 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Nebojša Vučinić , President, Paul Lemmens, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 April 2008,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr İbrahim Halil Bilsel , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Şanlıurfa . He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Delebe and Mr N. Çevirci , lawyers practising in Şanlıurfa .

2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. The applicant had three plots of land in Sırrın , in the Merkez District of Şanlıurfa , which had been registered in the land register as plot nos. 1443, 1444 and 1445.

5. On an unknown date, the Municipality of Şanlıurfa (hereinafter referred to as “the Municipality” ) started using the applicant ’ s plots of land with a view to construction of a road.

6. On 9 May 2002 the applicant brought an action before the Şanlıurfa Civil Court of First Instance against the Municipality and requested the market value of his land as compensation for de facto expropriation.

7. On 30 May 2007 the Şanlıurfa Civil Court of First Instance awarded the applicant 117,775.95 Turkish liras (TRY) plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 9 May 2002. The applicant ’ s appeal and rectification request were both dismissed by the Court of Cassation, and the judgment became final on 16 October 2008.

8. On 30 July 2009 the Municipality paid the compensation award in full, together with the statutory interest, to the applicant.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

9. A description of the domestic law and practice with respect to the Compensation Commission (see paragraph 14 below) may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013 and DemiroÄŸlu and Others v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013.

COMPLAINTS

10. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained about the delay in the payment of compensation award for de facto expropriation of his land.

11. The applicant complained of violations of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of both the length and the fairness of the domestic proceedings.

12. The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the designation of his plots of land as road area in the local land development plan had breached his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

THE LAW

A. As to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (length of domestic proceedings and delayed enforcement of judgment)

13. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the authorities delayed paying him the compensation amount awarded by the domestic courts. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of domestic proceedings.

14. The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a Compensation Commission had been established in Turkey to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings, the delayed execution of judgments and the non-execution of judgments. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to the Compensation Commission.

15. The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a 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 decisions in the cases of Turgut and Others v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013) and Demiroğlu and Others v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013), the Court declared the applications 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 remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings and the failure of the authorities to enforce judicial decisions.

16. The Court notes that in its judgment in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77), it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of that type which had already been communicated to the Government.

17. However, taking into account the Government ’ s preliminary objection with regard to the applicant ’ s failure to make use of the domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the cases of Turgut and Others and Demiroğlu and Others , cited above.

18. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant ’ s complaints regarding the length of domestic proceedings and the delayed enforcement of domestic judgments should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies.

B. Other Complaints

19. The applicant also complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in that he had been unable to use his land for 14 years since it had been designated as road area in the local land development plan. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the fairness of the proceedings.

20. In the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court concludes that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, the Court rejects them as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible .

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2018 .

Hasan Bakırcı NebojÅ¡a Vučinić              Deputy Registrar President