SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 38143/08 Semra GÃœNEY against Turkey

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

Julia Laffranque, President, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 August 2008,

Having regard to the decision of 17 November 2009,

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, Ms Semra Güney , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1962 and lives in İzmir. She was represented before the Court by Mr S. Cengiz , a lawyer practising in İzmir.

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. Following the taking over of the Imarbank by the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency and Savings Deposit Insurance Fund, on 4 May 2004 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Ankara Administrative Court. On 26 July 2006 the Ankara Administrative Court partially accepted the applicant ’ s claims. On 28 January 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the first instance court. During the appeal proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court delivered his written opinion and without raising any substantial new issue regarding the merits of the case, in one short sentence, he invited the court to uphold the impugned decision. This opinion was not notified to the applicant.

5. The case was accordingly remitted before the Ankara Administrative Court. On 14 May 2008 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s case.

6. On 6 July 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Ankara Administrative Court. Once again, during the appeal proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court delivered his written opinion on the case and without raising any substantial new issue regarding the merits of the case, in a short sentence, he invited the court to uphold the impugned decision. This opinion was not notified to the applicant.

B. Relevant domestic law

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), and Kılıç and others v. Turkey ( dec. ), (no. 33162/10, §§ 10-13, 3 December 2013).

COMPLAINTS

8. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive.

9. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s written opinion to her during the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated her right to an adversarial and fair hearing.

THE LAW

I. DISJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

10. On 19 November 2009 in view of the similarity of the complaints, the Court decided to join five applications, namely Erdem and Egin Erdem v. Turkey (no. 28431/06), Saygı v. Turkey (no. 55559/07), Karadağ v. Turkey (no. 26427/08), Güney v. Turkey (no. 38143/08) and Şensoy v. Turkey (no. 58227/08); to declare the applications partially inadmissible and communicate the remaining part to the Government. However, the Court considers that it is necessary to separate them. Accordingly, it decides to disjoin the present application from the other ones.

II. ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION

A. Length of proceedings

11. 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.

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 applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as she 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 v. Turkey (( 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 judgment 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.

15. However, taking account of the Government ’ s preliminary objection with regard to the obligation of the applicant 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 (cited above). It therefore concludes that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

B. Non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s written opinions

16. The applicant complained that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s respective written opinions during the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated her right to an adversarial and fair hearing. In this respect, she relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

17. The Court notes that it has already examined the same issue in the case of Kılıç and others v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 33162/10, §§ 19 ‑ 23, 3 December 2013) and considered that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage. Accordingly, it has declared this complaint inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention.

18. Having in particular regard to the contents of the respective written opinions filed by the Chief Public Prosecutor in the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court, the Court finds no particular reasons in the present application which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned case.

19. In the light of the foregoing, this complaint is inadmissible and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

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

Hasan Bakırcı Julia Laffranque              Deputy Registrar President