CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 mars 2017

.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 } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC3D571B0 { width:197.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 13319/09 Lutfi TEKİN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14   March 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Nebojša Vučinić, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 February 2009, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Lutfi Tekin, is a Turkish national, who was born in   1960 and lives in Mersin. He was represented before the Court by Mr   T.   Yılmaz, a lawyer practising in Anamur. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     On 26 January 1999 the Municipality of Çarıklar concluded a contract with the applicant’s company authorising the latter to run a gravel pit within its control, for five years. 5.     On 15 June 1999 the Municipality unilaterally revoked the contract. 6.     On 18 June 1999 the operation of the company was terminated. 7.     On 12 July 1999 the applicant filed an action against the Municipality claiming the recovery of his financial loss caused by the unilateral revocation of the contract. 8.     On 17 January 2007 the Anamur Civil Court accepted the applicant’s action and ordered the Municipality to pay 12,055 Turkish liras (TRY) along with interest to the applicant. 9.     The applicant brought enforcement proceedings against the Municipality for the payment of the amount awarded by the domestic court. 10.     On 23 October 2008 the Anamur Execution Office issued a proof of debt against the Municipality, stating that the unsecured debt in the applicant’s account was TRY 60,620 up to that date. 11.     At the date of lodging the case, the municipality had still not paid the due amount determined by the domestic court. B.     Relevant domestic law 12.     A description of the domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013 and Demiroğlu and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013. COMPLAINTS 13.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the failure of the national authorities to comply with the domestic court judgment for a long period of time. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant further alleged that there was no effective remedy in domestic law by which he could compel the administration to honour its debt. THE LAW A.     As to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 14.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-execution of domestic court judgments. 15.     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. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 16.     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 and others 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 non-execution of judgments. 17.     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. 18.     Taking into account the Government’s 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 cases of Demiroğlu (cited above, §§ 24-36) and Turgut and Others (dec.), no.   4860/09, §§   47 ‑ 59, 26 March 2013. 19.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that this part of the application should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. B.     As to Article 13 of the Convention 20.     The applicant, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, also complained that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law to compel the administration to honour its debt. 21.     The Court recalls that the Compensation Commission established by Law No. 6384 provides for a remedy to the applicant within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention to complain about the non-execution of domestic court decisions for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Turgut and Others, cited above, §§   59-60). 22.     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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 6 April 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President