SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 24640/09 Ö mer Faruk DAĞTEKİN against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 October 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 4 May 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, Mr Ömer Faruk Dağtekin , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1953, and lives in Ankara.

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

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

4. At the relevant time giving rise to the present application, the applicant was working as a legal officer at the Ministry of Education. On 16 August 2002 he applied to be appointed as head of division. However, his request was rejected. The applicant then initiated proceedings to have the annulment of that decision.

5. On 11 June 2003 the Ankara Administrative Court decided that the said decision should be annulled as the authorities had failed in properly assessing the staff needs and policy. On 13 December 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Ankara Administrative Court ’ s decision.

6. In the meantime, following the decision of 11 June 2003, the applicant requested its enforcement by being appointed to the post in question. However, this request was rejected on 19 November 2003.

7. The applicant brought an action before the Ankara Administrative Court for the annulment of the rejection decision dated 19 November 2003. He asked for the full recognition of his employee rights and the monetary rights that he had been deprived of for failure to appoint him to the post in question. On 14 November 2007 the Ankara Administrative Court accepted the applicant ’ s claims and set aside the decision dated 19 November 2003. The court further ordered the administration to pay for the applicant ’ s financial loss. On 10 March 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Ankara Administrative Court ’ s decision dated 14 November 2007.

8. On 25 February 2008 the Ministry reserved a post of Head of Division to the applicant to secure the enforcement of the court decision. A decree to that affect was drafted, however, the Minister of Education refrained from signing it and assigned a third person to this post.

9. In the course of both sets of administrative proceedings, the applicant lodged criminal complaints against the administrative authorities, including the Minister of Education and high ranking officers at the Ministry, on account of breach of duty. However, these complaints were dismissed by the domestic courts.

10. On 20 January 2010 the applicant was appointed as head of division. In March 2010 he received the compensation plus interest that had been awarded by the Ankara Administrative Court on 14 November 2007.

COMPLAINT

11. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the administrative authorities ’ failure to comply with the domestic court judgments given in his favour.

THE LAW

12. The Government argued that the applicant could no longer be considered as a victim because the non-enforcement of a court decision was acknowledged and remedied. In this connection, the Government noted that the applicant was appointed to the post of head of division on 20 January 2010 and that he had received compensation for his loss on account of the delay in the enforcement proceedings.

13. The applicant confirmed that he had been appointed as Head of Division, and that he had received compensation for his loss. He however argued that his application concerned the ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings that he had initiated against the Minister of Education and other high ranking officers.

14. The Court reiterates that an individual can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (see Rautonen v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 26813/09, 15 May 2012).

15. In the present case, it is undisputed between the parties that the applicant was appointed to a post of Head of Division on 20 January 2010 and that in March he received compensation from the authorities for the alleged loss that he had suffered as a result of the delay in the enforcement of the decision dated 14 November 2007.

16. Consequently, the Court, exercising its supervisory function, is satisfied that the redress provided to the applicant was sufficient. The applicant can thus no longer claim to be a victim of a breach of non ‑ enforcement of domestic court decisions. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

17. In so far as the applicant complains about the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigations that were launched upon his complaint against the Ministry of Education and the high ranking officers, the Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee the right to have criminal proceedings against third persons or to have such persons convicted (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004 ‑ I, and Beyazgül v. Turkey , no. 27849/03 , §§ 36 and 39, 22 September 2009 ). The Court thus concludes that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must also be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible .

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 November 2017 .

Hasan Bakırcı Julia Laffranque Deputy Registrar President