LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
GÖĞÜŞ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 68048/12;68050/12;68057/12;68059/12;68064/12;69658/12;78811/12 • ECHR ID: 001-141340
Document date: January 28, 2014
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
GÖĞÜŞ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 68048/12;68050/12;68057/12;68059/12;68064/12;69658/12;78811/12 • ECHR ID: 001-141340
Document date: January 28, 2014
Cited paragraphs only
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
GÖĞÜŞ AND OTHERS against Turkey
Application s no s . 68048/12, 68050/12, 68057/12, 68059/12, 68064/12, 69658/12, 78811/12
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
András Sajó, President, Nebojša Vučinić, Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Stanley Naismith , Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above applications, listed in the Appendix,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. Additionally, the case and decision numbers of the impugned proceedings appear in the Appendix.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts or civil proceedings were brought against them before the civil courts. All proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts.
B. Relevant domestic law
A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).
COMPLAINTS
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.
Certain applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing as the domestic judicial authorities had erred in assessment of the evidence and establishment of the facts.
Certain applicants also alleged violations of their freedom of association as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention in that their right to establish a political party was breached as civil proceedings were brought against them for debt.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given the similarity of the facts and of the legal issues raised.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings was incompatible within the ‘‘ reasonable time ’’ requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...”
The Court observes that the applicants asserted that the length of the proceedings was incompatible with the principle of the ‘‘ reasonable time ’’ requirement in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In that respect, the Court found in Müdür Turgut and Others ((dec.), cited above, §§ 58 and 60) that the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384, insofar as it is accessible and capable of offering reasonable prospects of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings constituted a remedy which applicants were required to exhaust for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, the applicants should avail themselves of the new remedy offered by Law no. 6384.
It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION
The Court observes that the civil proceedings against the applicants are still pending before the domestic courts. Therefore, the related complaints under this article are premature and must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Stanley Naismith András Sajó Registrar President
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Notes
68048/12
19/09/2012
Arif Alpay GÖĞÜŞ
22/07/1969
Ä°stanbul
Jülüde Işıl BAĞATUR
Istanbul 10. Enforcement Court E: 2007/2146
68050/12
19/09/2012
Hüsnü OKÇUOĞLU
15/10/1948
Ä°stanbul
Jülüde Işıl BAĞATUR
Ankara 8. Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E: 2004/125
68057/12
19/09/2012
Fatma Necla
ZARAKOL
30/08/1949
Ä°stanbul
Jülüde Işıl BAĞATUR
Ankara 8. Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E: 2004/125
68059/12
19/09/2012
Ä°smail Hakan AKSU
12/05/1962
Ä°stanbul
Jülüde Işıl BAĞATUR
Ankara 8. Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E: 2004/125
68064/12
19/09/2012
Ali AKSOY
18/02/1948
Adana
Jülüde Işıl BAĞATUR
Ankara 8. Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E: 2004/125
69658/12
20/09/2012
K ıvı lc ı m Kemal
ANADOL
30/08/1949
Izmir
Jülüde Işıl BAĞATUR
Ankara 8. Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E: 2004/125
78811/12
14/09/2012
Mehmet Çağr ı BAĞATUR
21/08/1963
Ä°stanbul
Jülüde Işıl BAĞATUR
Ankara 8. Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E: 2004/125
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
