SARGIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 20236/06 • ECHR ID: 001-141300
Document date: January 28, 2014
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 20236/06 Müge SARGIN and others against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović , President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges , and Stephen Phillips , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 April 2006 ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are represented by Mr M. S. Tanrıkulu , a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent .
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1976 the applicants brought proceedings, requesting the annulment of a cadastral survey which stated that certain land should be registered in the Treasury ’ s name as it was neither occupied nor owned by private persons. On 27 May 2000 the Bodrum Cadastral Court dismissed the applicants ’ case and held that the land should be registered in the Treasury ’ s name. On 15 July 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment. On 17 October 2005 the Court of Cassation rejected the request for rectification. On 31 October 2005 the final decision was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court.
B. Relevant domestic law
A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in M ü d ü r Turgut and Others (( dec. ), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013 ).
COMPLAINT S
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national court were not con cluded within a reasonable time .
The applicant s allege violation of Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law.
They maintain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of property was violated by the excessive length of the proceedings .
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The applicant s complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of 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 a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey after the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). The Court recalls that in its decision in the case of Turgut and others v. Turkey (no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), it declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as a new domestic remedy had been envisaged. In so doing, the Court in particular considered that this new remedy was, a priori , accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings.
The Court further recalls that in its j udgment in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (cited above, § 77) it stressed that it could pursue the examination of applications of this type which were already communicated to the Government.
The Government requested the Court to declare this application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies , consider ing Law no. 6384 which provides for a remedy capable of redressing the Convention grievances of persons who complain about the length of proceedings. The applicant s contested the Government ’ s argument.
In the light of the case of M ü d ü r Turgut and Others, cited above, there are no exceptional circumstances capable of exempting the present applicant from the obligation to exhaust domestic remed ies . Accordingly, the applicants should avail themselves of the new remedy offered by Law no. 6384 .
It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant s also complain that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. They rel y in this regard Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Court recalls that it has also held that the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384 provides to the applicant s for a remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention to complain about the length of proceedings to purposes of Article 6 § 1 relating to all applications pending before the Court, but not yet communicated to the respondent Government before 23 September 2012 ( Müdür Turgut and Others, cited above, § 59) .
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 .
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicants further complained that the length of the proceedings complained of had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Having carefully examined the applicants ’ complaints in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that these parts of the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen Ph illips Dragoljub Popović Acting Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
N o .
Applicant
Place of residence
Representative
Müge SARGIN
Ankara
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Necmi CAVLI
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Şöhret AKGÖNEN
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Yüksel SEZEN
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Ali SEZEN
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Mensure BOZKURT
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Pakize TÜRKÖZ
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Salime ÅžENGÃœL
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Ramazan Ä°NECÄ°
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Hevse Ä°NECÄ°
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Fatma YILMAZ
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Halime Ä°NECÄ°
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Hasan Ä°NECÄ°
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Zübeyde MENGÜÇ
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
O. Necmi CAVLI
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Ãœlke SAVAÅž
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Kamuran ÖNCEL
Ä°zmir
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Ahter Gönül CAĞLAR
Ä°zmir
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Mehmet ÖLMEZ
Istanbul
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Ali Vasfi TOKER
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Naciye TOKER
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Mustafa Çetin TOKER
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Mehmet TOKER
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Ä°brahim TOKER
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Pembe TOKER
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Güzide ÇIRAKOĞLU
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Güzin ERBİL
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Mediha CEYLAN
Ä°zmir
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Ä°kbal TOKER
Aydın
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Hatice TOKER
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Hasan TOKER
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
YaÅŸar TOKER
Ankara
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Nevse TOKER
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Fatma ERCAN
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Ali TOKER
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Tan KAYA
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Sevil KURTER
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Nermin TOPRAKLI
Bursa
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Belgin GÃœLER
Ä°zmir
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
AydoÄŸdu TOKER
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Süheyla KASAL
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Sevgi TÄ°TÄ°Z
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Sevil ULUBAY
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Ahmet TOKER
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Gülgün ERENLER
Ä°zmir
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Melahat ÖZÇERİ
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Semahat Ä°NECÄ°
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU
Fevzi AKIN
MuÄŸla
Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU