CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 juin 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 } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 741/06 Raif ÇETİN against Turkey and 5 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2   June 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 applications, listed in the appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants, including their names, dates of birth as well as the names of their representatives, is set out in the appendix. 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 various dates, the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts or criminal proceedings were brought against them before the criminal courts. Certain procedures lasted several years, and some are still pending before the domestic courts. The details of the applications appear in the table below. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 4.     A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). COMPLAINT 5.     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. THE LAW 6.     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. 7.     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). 8.     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. 9.     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. 10.     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, Decides to join the applications; Declares inadmissible the applications.   Done in English and notified in writing on 25 June 2015.   Abel Campos   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX     No.   Application No.   Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   Represented by   Date and Reference Numbers of the Judgments Given by the Domestic Courts   741/06 22/12/2005 Raif ÇETİN 1969 Istanbul   Bediray ERDOST İstanbul Assize Court 1999/271 E. 2002/56 K. upheld by the Court of Cassation on 19 April 2005   39865/06 18/09/2006 Yasin TAŞ 1962 Kırıkkale   Halis BİÇER Ankara Administrative Court   2004/3488 E. 2004/1954 K. pending before the Supreme Administrative Court at the date of application   46857/07 17/10/2007 Mehmet UYAR 1960 Bursa   Elif UYAR 1963 Bursa   Mustafa UYAR 1985 Bursa   Hasan SAKARYA Bursa Administrative Court 2007/551 E. 2007/738 K. pending before the Supreme Administrative Court at the date of application   51679/07 09/11/2007 Nurgül DOĞAN 1965 Istanbul   Gülizar TUNCER İstanbul Assize Court 2006/85 E. 2007/71 K.   upheld by the Court of Cassation on 28 September 2009   30096/08 19/06/2008 Yaşar BECCELİ 1945 İzmir   Ahmet SEVER İzmir Labour Court 2000/659 E. 2007/796 K. on 13 December 2007   32796/08 24/06/2008 Medeni AYHAN 1968 Ankara   Metin AYHAN Decision of the Court of Cassation 2007/3337 E 2007/3267 K on 25 September 2007