SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 41798/06 Emine ATASEVEN 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 3 October 2006 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are represented by Mr K . H atipoğlu , a lawyer practising in Düzce .

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 1972 several persons brought proceedings against the applicants, requesting the annulment of a cadastral survey which found that certain plots of land be registered in the name of the applicants. Subsequently, an annotation was made in the Land Registry in order to prevent the sale of this property. On 11 October 1978 a caution was registered in the Registry against the applicants. On 12 February 2005 the Düzce Cadastral Court dismissed the case and ordered that the impugned plots be registered in the applicants ’ name, as determi ned by the cadastral survey. On 31 May 2005 the caution was removed following the applicants ’ request. On 13 April 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment 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 concluded within a reasonable time.

The applicants maintain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their right to peaceful enjoyment of property was violated by the excessive length of the proceedings in that they could neither use nor sell the property due to the annotation and the caution in the Land Register.

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 , as Law no. 6384 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 applicants 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 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.

S tephen Phillips Dragoljub Popović Acting Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

N o .

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Emine ATASEVEN

01/08/1969

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU

Ä°smail ATASEVEN

02/03/1968

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU

Cemile KILIÇ

01/01/1946

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU

AyÅŸe KAHVECÄ°

01/01/1952

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU

Hafize ARSLAN

10/04/1967

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU

Osman ATASEVEN

23/09/1931

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU

Meryem KOÇ

29/03/1977

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU

Reyhan AYTAN

01/06/1955

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU

Cemile YILMAZ

02/05/1964

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU

Fatma TEZCAN

08/05/1964

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU

Münevver AYTAN

08/08/1961

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU

Ä°dris AYKUT

02/04/1973

Düzce

Kudret HATÄ°POÄžLU