CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 mai 2015

.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 } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28BDCFEA { width:6.53pt; display:inline-block } .s3B18E3A1 { width:198.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; 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 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 36449/06 TOKYÜREK AND OKUMUŞ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Sec ond Section), sitting on 19   May 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Nebojša Vučinić, President,   Paul Lemmens,   Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 August 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented by Ms   P.   Uysal, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 24 April 1987 Mr Tokyürek, the husband of the first applicant and the father of the remaining applicants, had brought a compensation case (1987/149   E) before the Silivri Civil Court against third parties. 4.     On 26 August 1999 Mr Tokyürek died and the civil case was followed by his heirs, namely, the applicants. 5.     According to the latest information in the case file, the case was still pending before the civil court on 24 May 2010. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 6.     A description of the domestic law and practice may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013. COMPLAINT 7.     Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW 8.     The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. 9.     The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. They maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission: this ground had also been recognised by the Court in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013). 10.     The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no.   24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others, cited above, the Court declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings. 11.     The Court notes that in its decision in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77) it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of this type which had already been communicated to the Government. 12.     However, taking account of the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicants’ failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Turgut and Others . It therefore concludes that the complaint of the excessive length of the civil proceedings must be rejected under Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. (see Rifat Demir v. Turkey, no. 24267/07, § 35, 4 June 2013 and Yiğitdoğan v. Turkey (no. 2), no.   72174/10, § 59, 3 June 2014). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissable.   Done in English and notified in writing on 11 June 2015.   Abel Campos   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix 1.     Yüksel TOKYÜREK, who was born in Bursa in 1936, is a Turkish national and resides in Ankara.   2.     Füsun OKUMUŞ, who was born in Ankara in 1956, is a Turkish national and resides in Ankara.   3.     Murat TOKYÜREK, who was born in Manisa in 1958, is a Turkish national and resides in Muğla.   4.     Suat TOKYÜREK, who was born in İzmir in 1961, is a Turkish national and resides in Antalya.