SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 24000/07 Hüseyin BULUT and others against Turkey and 2 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 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 applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table ,

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, whose details are set out in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr. Sedat Çınar, a lawyer practicing in Diyarbakır. T he Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. Upon the applicants ’ request, the Court decided that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine of the Rules of Court).

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. On 5 May 1999 the applicants were laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur Municipality (“the Municipality”). Subsequently, the applicants brought separate actions before the Diyarbakır Labour Court against the Municipality, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities, severance pay and other pecuniary rights. The court granted the applicants ’ requests and in the absence of appeal, the judgments became final. At the date of introduction of the applications, the judgment debts were still outstanding. Subsequently, friendly settlement agreements were reached between the Municipality and some of the applicants, namely Mr Hüseyin Kumral, Mr Kadri Ekici, Mr Mahfuz Ok and Mr Orhan Görken and the relevant payments were made to these applicants. No friendly settlement agreement was signed between Mr Hüseyin Bulut and the Municipality, and according to the information in the case file, this debt is still not paid.

4. The details of the applications appear in the attached table.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. Regarding the applicants “victim status” for claims raised under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

5. A full description of domestic law and notion of “victim” in domestic settlements may be found in Çiçek and Öztemel and Others v. Turkey ( nos. 74069/01, 74703/01, 76380/01, 16809/02, 25710/02, 25714/02 and 30383/02, §§ 18-39, 3 May 2007).

2. Regarding the Competency of the Compensation Commission

6. 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).

COMPLAINTS

7. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the failure of the national authorities to comply with the Diyarbakır Labour Court ’ s judgments for a long period of time.

THE LAW

8. Given the similarity of the applications, both as regards fact and law, the Court deems it appropriate to join them.

9. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the authorities ’ failure to comply with the labour court ’ s judgments for a long period of time

A. As to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

1. In respect of Mr Hüseyin Kumral, Mr Kadri Ekici, Mr Mahfuz Ok and Mr Orhan Görken

10. At the outset, the Court observes that that the Municipality signed settlement protocols with four of the applicants, namely with Mr Hüseyin Kumral, Mr Kadri Ekici, Mr Mahfuz Ok and Mr Orhan Görken . These agreements stipulated that the applicants waived any outstanding compensation claims, rights and other credits including costs, expenses and legal fees, against the payment of certain lump sums.

11. The Court therefore considers that the victim status of these applicants has been partially reduced. The domestic settlements covered their claims under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 and thus the “matter” which was resolved through the settlement protocols was solely the “deprivation of property” complaint. Indeed, payment of the outstanding amounts may have sufficiently responded to the property related matters, however, it did not remedy their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In these circumstances, and relying on its case-law (see Çiçek and Öztemel and Others v. Turkey (nos. 74069/01, 74703/01, 76380/01, 16809/02, 25710/02, 25714/02 and 30383/02, §§ 23-25, 3 May 2007; Ekici and Others v. Turkey , no. 28877/03, § 19, 23 September 2008), the Court considers that these applicants ’ victim status has been removed in the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and this part of the application should therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. However, their complaint under Article 6 § 1 requires a separate examination (see paragraphs 16 and 17 below).

2. In respect of Mr Hüseyin Bulut (first applicant in application no. 24000/07)

12. The Court observes that no settlement agreement was signed between the Municipality and Mr Hüseyin Bulut and according to the information in the case-file, the Municipality has still not paid the amount granted by the domestic court.

13. 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 applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to the Compensation Commission.

14. 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 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.

15. T aking into account the Government ’ s preliminary objection, the Court concludes that this part of the application should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies .

B. As to Article 6 of the Convention

16 . 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 in respect of their Article 6 complaint, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission.

17. The Court reiterates its conclusions above (see paragraphs 14 and 15 above ) and it concludes t hat this part of the application should also be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies .

C. As to Article 13 of the Convention

18. The applicants also complained that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law to compel municipalities to honour their debts deriving from court judgments. They relied, in this regard, on Article 13 of the Convention.

19. The Court recalls that the Compensation Commission established by Law No. 6384 provides for a remedy to the applicants within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention to complain about the non-execution of domestic court decisions for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention relating to all applications pending before the Court submitted before 23 March 2013 (see Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).

20. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 6 October 2016 .

Hasan Bakırcı NebojÅ¡a Vučinić              Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application No

Aplicant

Date of birth

Place of Residence

Application date and No. of first instance court decisions

Date of final decision

Date of execution

24000/07

Hüseyin BULUT

01/01/1972

Diyarbakır

Hüseyin KUMRAL

01/01/1964

Diyarbakır

Kadri EKÄ°CÄ°

01/01/1972

Diyarbakır

23/12/1999 Diyarbakır Labour Court,

E: 1999/323 K: 1999/509

15/06/1999 Diyarbakır Labour Court,

E: 1999/350 K: 1999/385

17/11/1999 Diyarbakır Labour Court,

E: 1999/321 K: 1999/357

31/12/1999

19/11/1999

19/11/1999

-

26/09/2008

23/12/2008

24440/07

Mahfuz OK

10/03/1970

Diyarbakır

02/06/1999 Diyarbakır Labour Court,

E: 1999/238

K: 1999/337

19/11/1999

20/03/2008

25217/07

Orhan GÖRKEN

07/01/1973

Diyarbakır

15/06/1999 Diyarbakır Labour Court,

E: 1999/329

K: 1999/364

19/11/1999

31/07/2008