SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 18741/04 Bedii Burak BOZBEY against Turkey and 4 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 23 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:

András Sajó , President, Helen Keller, Robert Spano , 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 . 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 relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 4860/09 , §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).

COMPLAINT

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.

THE LAW

6. Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the present cases, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single decision.

7. 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.

8. 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 applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they 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 (( dec. ), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).

9. 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.

10. 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 this type which had already been communicated to the Government.

11. However, taking account of the Government ’ s preliminary 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 case of Turgut and Others . It therefore concludes that the complaint of the excessive length of the civil proceedings must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non- exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Rifat Demir v. Turkey , no. 24267/07, § 35, 4 June 2013 ; and Yiğitdoğan v. Turkey (no. 2), no . 72174/10, § 59, 3 June 2014).

For these reasons, the Court , unanimously ,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares inadmissible the applications.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 2015 .

Abel Campos András Sajó Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No .

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

18741/04

19/01/2004

Bedii Burak BOZBEY

1966 - Isparta

H ı d ı r YILDIZ

Gelendost Cadastral Court

1996/015 E. 1999/001 K.

1997/001 E. 1999/004 K.

Proceedings were still pending before the Court of Cassation .

48454/06

22/11/2006

Nesrin YILMAZ

1950 - Ankara

Gökçen ZORCU

Ankara Administrative Court

2003/456 E. 2003/599 K.

The proceedings became final on 7 July 2006.

20637/07

04/05/2007

Binali ÇINAR

1932 - Ardahan

Metin Taylan ÖZYILMAZ

Posof Magistrates ’ Court

1996/73 E 2005/32 K. The

case was subsequently transferred to the Posof Civil Court where the proceedings were still pending

28997/08

09/06/2008

Ä°brahim GÃœNEY

1949 - Ä°stanbul

Metin FÄ°LORÄ°NALI

Küçükçekmece Civil Court

2006/555 E. 2 006 / 592 K.

The proceedings became final on

4 December 2007.

38848/08

04/08/2008

Ercüment ÖZTÜRK

1961 - EskiÅŸ ehir

Erdinç TOKLU

EskiÅŸehir Administrative Court

2003/169 E. 2004/1306 K.

Supreme Administrative Court

2005/1468 E. 2007/5334 K.

Rectification proceedings were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court