CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 février 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s82B56815 { width:201.76pt; 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 } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s15BDF7F4 { font-family:Arial; color:#1f497d }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45115/05 Tülay ÇAKAR against Turkey and 3 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9   February 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Ksenija Turković,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The list of the applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, 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 respectively initiated proceedings against administrative authorities and they were awarded compensation. The relevant administrative authorities did not pay the amounts in dispute. The details of the applications may be found in the attached table. B.     Relevant domestic law 4.     A description of the domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013, and Demiroğlu v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013. COMPLAINTS 5.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that despite the domestic court judgments given in their favour, the administrative authorities did not pay the amounts in dispute. THE LAW 6.     The applicants complained about the loss they had suffered as a result of the non-payment of the compensation amounts awarded by domestic courts. 7.     The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 of 9   January 2013 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-enforcement 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 applications should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as the applicants should avail themselves of the remedy before the Compensation Commission. 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 Demiroğlu v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013), 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 failure of the authorities to enforce judicial decisions. 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 that type which had already been communicated to the Government. 10.     However, taking into account 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 Demiroğlu , cited above. 11.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applications should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares inadmissible the applications.   Done in English and notified in writing on 3 March 2016.   Abel Campos   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Case specific details   45115/05 21/11/2005 Tülay ÇAKAR 1964 Gaziantep     Final decision delivered by İslahiye Labour Court on 11.06.2004 E: 2002/283 K: 2004/140 Compensation awarded: 26,950,583,000 TRL plus interest   8775/06 08/02/2006 İsa YILMAZ 1975 Gaziantep   Mehmet ALP Final decision delivered by İslahiye Labour Court on 1.7.2005 E: 2005/20 K: 2005/192 Compensation awarded: 19,050   TRY [1] plus interest   685/08 29/12/2007 Sait OLGUN 1979 Diyarbakır   Sedat ÇINAR Final decision delivered by Diyarbakır Labour Court on 23.12.1999 E: 1999/329 K:1999/364 Compensation awarded: 1,000,000,000 TRL plus interest   20848/08 18/04/2008 Rasim ÇÖRTEN 1965 Adana   Fikret ADAMHASAN Final decision delivered by Adana Labour Court on 21.10.2002 E: 2001/1024 K: 2002/733 Compensation awarded: 15,965,631,590 TRL plus interest   [1] .     On 1 January 2005 the Turkish lira (TRY) entered into circulation, replacing the former Turkish lira (TRL). TRY   1   = TRL   1,000,000.