CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB55E796 { width:26.35pt; display:inline-block } .sABCB874F { width:193.94pt; display:inline-block } .sB622B88D { width:38.36pt; display:inline-block } .sD5CCF864 { width:129.92pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7E0F3F91 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3C2CFC22 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s684B547D { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 39617/11 Kandile YEŞİLFİDAN against Turkey and 10 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1   October 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   András Sajó,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, indicated in the Appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants as well as 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. Certain procedures lasted several years, however some 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 alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. Certain applicants also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the amounts awarded to them lost their value due to the length of the proceedings. 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 proceedings had been incompatible with “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 had been incompatible with the principle of the “reasonable time” requirement in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court found in Müdür Turgut and Others (cited above, §§ 58 and 60) that the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384, insofar as it is, a priori, accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings is a remedy which applicants should make use of. 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.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION The applicants also complain that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. They rely 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 for a remedy to the applicants within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention to complain about the length of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention relating to all applications pending before the Court, not yet communicated to the respondent Government submitted 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. IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 OF THE CONVENTION Having carefully examined the applicants’ complaints in the light of all the materials 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 Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Seçkin Erel   Peer Lorenzen   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Notes   39617/11 15/04/2011 Kandile YEŞİLFİDAN 20/06/1974 İstanbul   İlhami SAYAN İstanbul 4. Assize Court E:   2010/148, K:   2010/263     51024/11 15/06/2011 Maşallah ARITÜRK 01/01/1961 İstanbul   İlhami SAYAN Bakırköy 4. Assize Court, E: 2010/191.   51031/11 15/06/2011 Binefş METİN 01/01/1956 İstanbul   İlhami SAYAN Bakırköy 8. Assize Court, E: 2010/240, K: 2011/40.   51041/11 15/06/2011 Zozan DENİZ 01/01/1980 İstanbul   İlhami SAYAN Bakırköy 4. Assize Court, E: 2010/192, K: 2010/330.   51048/11 15/06/2011 Delal KARDAŞ 01/01/1942 İstanbul   İlhami SAYAN Bakırköy 4. Assize Court, E: 2010/139, K: 2010/325.   62743/11 14/09/2011 Emrah TARLAN 01/01/1986 Istanbul   İlhami SAYAN Court of cassation E: 2012/17565 K: 2012/16995.     72344/11 14/09/2011 Meryem PEKER 01/08/1957 İstanbul İlhami SAYAN Bakırköy Assize Court, E:   2010 / 93, K:   2011 /87   72350/11 14/09/2011 Rabia BEKTAŞ 01/02/1962 İstanbul   İlhami SAYAN Bakırköy Assize Court, E:   2010/116, K: 2011/38     72354/11 14/09/2011 Saadet YALĞI 01/01/1950 İstanbul   İlhami SAYAN Bakırköy Assize Court, E: 2009/15, 2010/329               16904/12 23/02/2012 Veysi BİNGÖL 01/01/1988 İstanbul   İlhami SAYAN Bakırköy 2. Assize Court, E: 2010/120, K: 2011/200.             48738/12 28/05/2012 Münir AKTI 06/05/1967 İstanbul   Muhteber AKTI 01/01/1977 İstanbul   Ferhat AKTI 10/07/1997 İstanbul İlhami SAYAN Bagcılar 2. Civil Court of General Jurisdiction; E:   2002/1431.