SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 46940/06 Zeliha ULUKUÅž and others against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 March 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Nebojša Vučinić , President, Valeriu Griţco , Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 November 2006,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicants, Ms Zeliha Ulukuş , Ms Sultan Çetinkaya, Ms Vahide Çoban, Ms İslim Delen and Ms Fatma Derin are Turkish nationals who were born in 1944, 1955, 1950, 1936 and 1950 respectively and live in Gaziantep. They were represented before the Court by Mr M.S. Yıldız , a lawyer practicing in Gaziantep.

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. On 3 August 1990 The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (“the administration”) decided to expropriate the applicants ’ plot of land (plot no. 400) in Birecik , Şanlıurfa and on 24 April 2000 the decision was served on the applicants.

5. On 24 April 2000 the applicants initiated compensation proceedings before the Birecik Civil Court of General Jurisdiction for additional compensation.

6. On 19 December 2000 the domestic court awarded a sum of 11,900,000,000 T urkish liras (approximately 19,600 euros at that date) plus interest at the statutory rate.

7. On 10 December 2001 the case was upheld by the Court of Cassation.

8. According to the information in the case file, on 25 May 2006 the administration paid the outstanding debt.

B. Relevant domestic law

9. A description of the domestic law 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.

COMPLAINT

10. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the failure of the national authorities to comply with a domestic court judgment for a long period of time.

THE LAW

11. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive delay in the execution of a domestic court judgment.

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. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission.

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 Demiroğlu and others v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013) , the Court declared an 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 non-execution of judgments.

14. The Court notes that in its decision 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.

15. Taking into account the Government ’ s objection with regard to the applicants ’ failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the cases of Demiroğlu , ( cited above ) , §§ 24-36, et Turgut and Others v. Turkey ( ( dec. ), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).

16. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the application should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 6 April 2017 .

Hasan Bakırcı NebojÅ¡a Vučinić              Deputy Registrar President