SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 79599/13 Nagihan DURAN against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 19 May 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Nebojša Vučinić , President ,

Paul Lemmens,

Egidijus KÅ«ris , judges,

and Abel Campos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 2013 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Nagihan Duran , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Aksaray .

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

3. On 10 April 2011 the applicant, her husband and her two sons (B.D., born in 1991, and Y.D.) were involved in a quarrel over a traffic dispute. Following the incident, the applicant, her son (Y.D.) and her husband were arrested and kept in custody for about six hours.

4. Subsequently, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against three police officers for abuse of office. On 24 June 2011 the Aksaray Public Prosecutor delivered a decision of non-prosecution on account of lack of evidence. On 3 October 2011 the Nev ş ehir Assize Court rejected the applicant ’ s objection. On 24 December 2012 the applicant filed an individual complaint with the Constitutional Cou rt. On 12 September 2013 the Constitutional Court rejected the case, holding that it did not have competence to examine cases which became final before 23 September 2012.

5. In the meantime, on 13 December 2011 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant ’ s son (B.D.) for intentionally causing bodily harm to a third person. On 13 November 2012 the Aksaray Magistrates ’ Court found the applicant ’ s son guilty as charged, however decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment pursuant to Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code. B.D. filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court, however his case was dismissed on 17 December 2013.

6. Furthermore, on 7 May 2012 the persons who were involved in the above-mentioned dispute initiated compensation proceedings against the applicant. This case was dismissed on 23 January 2014.

7. Finally a criminal complaint was lodged against the applicant for defamation. On 27 February 2013 the Aksaray Public Prosecutor delivered a decision of non-prosecution. This decision was upheld by the assize court on 8 May 2013.

COMPLAINTS

8. Without invoking any specific provision of the Convention, the applicant mainly complained that the domestic proceedings had been unfair.

THE LAW

9. The applicant alleged that the domestic proceedings had not been fair. The Court considers that the applicant ’ s complaints should be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads:

“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

10. The Court observes that the applicant ’ s complaints relate to four different sets of domestic proceedings. As regards the first set of proceedings which concerned the criminal complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court observes that these proceedings ended on 3 October 2011 with the final decision of the Nevşehir Assize Court. The applicant ’ s further application to the Constitutional Court does not interrupt the running of the six-month time-limit as the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to examine cases that became final solely after 23 September 2012. Accordingly, this part of the application is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

12. As regards the third set of proceedings that concerned the compensation proceedings initiated against the applicant, the Court observes that the final decision in the instant case was delivered on 23 January 2014. The applicant had therefore had the right to lodge an individual application with the Constitutional Court if she considered that the proceedings in dispute had been unfair (see Uzun v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 10755/13, §§ 68–71, 30 April 2013). As she has failed to do so, this part of the application should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

13. Finally, as regards the fourth set of proceedings regarding the criminal complaint lodged against the applicant for defamation, the Court observes that on 27 February 2013 the public prosecutor delivered a decision of non-prosecution and the assize court upheld this decision on 8 May 2013. As the applicant was not convicted, she cannot claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention (see, Er v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 21377/04, 18 November 2008) . 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.

For these reasons, the Court , unanimously ,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 June 2015 .

Abel Campos Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar President