CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 octobre 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 } .sA9E99AE7 { width:197.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s8934192D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB5EBD387 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9.5pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s94D66C7F { margin-left:31.34pt; text-align:center; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 9540/05 Ahmet Mithat BAYKAL against Turkey and 5 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13   October 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Ksenija Turković, President,   Robert Spano,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, 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 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 domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu v. Turkey (dec.), no.   56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no.   44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINTS 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. 6.     The applicants raised further complaints relying on Articles 2, 5, 6, 8, 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW 7.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. A.     Alleged violation of the Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged loss of value of the amount of the expropriation compensation due to the effects of inflation and the length of the proceedings. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 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 Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014), the Court declared an 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 depreciation of awards in expropriation cases. 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 that type which had already been communicated to the Government. 12.     However, taking into account the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicant’s 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 ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26   March 2013). 13.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that this part of the applications should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.     Other alleged violations of the Convention 14.     The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. However, in the light of the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with the Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares inadmissible the applications.   Done in English and notified in writing on 5 November 2015.   Abel Campos   Ksenija Turković 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   9540/05 24/02/2005 Ahmet Mithat BAYKAL 01/01/1957 Ankara   Şahin AZAP Istanbul Administrative Court 2005/1760 E. 2005/1557 K. Became final on 13   November 2007. The case was pending since 1997.   19396/05 25/05/2005 Hüseyin SÖZEN 03/10/1973 İzmir   Serkan CENGİZ Sivas Assize Court 2002/135 E. 2003/28 K. Became final on 7 February 2005. The case was pending since 3   March 2000. 3.1 33134/08 01/07/2008 İlker KÜPE 16/02/1983 Istanbul   Yaşar Kaya YILMAZ Büyükçekmece Civil Court 2006/543 E. 2006/1072 K. Became final on 12 May 2008. The case was pending since 18   November 2002.     35293/08 07/07/2008 Cemal AKBAŞ 23/10/1954 Mersin   Tahir Yahya İLHAN Erdemli Civil Court 2003/425 E. 2006/350 K. Became final on 31 March 2008. The case was pending since 20   August 1996.   34131/09 08/06/2009 Erol KOHEN 26/10/1953 Istanbul   Duygu DEMİRCİ Istanbul Commercial Court 1999/1098 E. 2007/396 K. Became final on 22 December 2008. The case was pending since 27   September 1999.   38040/09 02/07/2009 Ayla Celile BAŞÇI 05/09/1940 Gaziantep     Gaziantep Magistrates’ Court 2005/57 E. 2007/2563 K. Became final on 27 April 2009. The case was pending since 2000.