Search
document

Document text Analytics

BAYKAL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 9540/05;19396/05;33134/08;35293/08;34131/09;38040/09 • ECHR ID: 001-158574

Document date: October 13, 2015

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

BAYKAL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 9540/05;19396/05;33134/08;35293/08;34131/09;38040/09 • ECHR ID: 001-158574

Document date: October 13, 2015

Cited paragraphs only

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 9540/05 Ahmet Mithat BAYKAL against Turkey and 5 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 October 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Ksenija Turković, President, Robert Spano, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications, listed in the appendix,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts or criminal proceedings were brought against them before the criminal courts. Certain procedures lasted several years, and some are still pending before the domestic courts. The details of the applications appear in the table below.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

4. A description of the domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Y ı ld ı z and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014.

COMPLAINTS

5. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national courts had not been concluded within a reasonable time.

6. The applicants raised further complaints relying on Articles 2, 5, 6, 8, 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

A. Alleged violation of the Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

8. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

9. 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 further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged loss of value of the amount of the expropriation compensation due to the effects of inflation and the length of the proceedings. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to the Compensation Commission.

10. 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 Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014) , 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 the depreciation of awards in expropriation cases.

11. 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.

12. However, taking into account the Government ’ s preliminary objection with regard to the applicant ’ s failure 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 ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).

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

B. Other alleged violations of the Convention

14. The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. However, in the light of the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

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

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares inadmissible the applications.

Done in English and notified in writing on 5 November 2015 .

Abel Campos Ksenija Turković Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Date and Reference Numbers

of the Judgments Given by the Domestic Courts

9540/05

24/02/2005

Ahmet Mithat BAYKAL

01/01/1957

Ankara

Åžahin AZAP

Istanbul Administrative Court

2005/1760 E. 2005/1557 K.

Became final on 13 November 2007.

The case was pending since 1997.

19396/05

25/05/2005

Hüseyin SÖZEN

03/10/1973

Ä°zmir

Serkan CENGÄ°Z

Sivas Assize Court

2002/135 E.

2003/28 K.

Became final on 7 February 2005.

The case was pending since 3 March 2000.

33134/08

01/07/2008

Ä°lker KÃœPE

16/02/1983

Istanbul

YaÅŸar Kaya YILMAZ

Büyükçekmece Civil Court

2006/543 E.

2006/1072 K.

Became final on 12 May 2008.

The case was pending since 18 November 2002.

35293/08

07/07/2008

Cemal AKBAÅž

23/10/1954

Mersin

Tahir Yahya Ä°LHAN

Erdemli Civil Court

2003/425 E.

2006/350 K.

Became final on 31 March 2008.

The case was pending since 20 August 1996.

34131/09

08/06/2009

Erol KOHEN

26/10/1953

Istanbul

Duygu DEMÄ°RCÄ°

Istanbul Commercial Court

1999/1098 E.

2007/396 K.

Became final on 22 December 2008.

The case was pending since 27 September 1999.

38040/09

02/07/2009

Ayla Celile BAŞÇI

05/09/1940

Gaziantep

Gaziantep Magistrates ’ Court

2005/57 E.

2007/2563 K.

Became final on 27 April 2009.

The case was pending since 2000.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant