CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 janvier 2018

.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 } .s172EF8F1 { width:208.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s619FCD1 { font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 1971/10 Sevim SEZER and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23   January 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Ledi Bianku, President,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 December 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants are all Turkish nationals and before the Court they are represented by Mr O. Genç, a lawyer practising in Tekirdağ. The details of the applicants can be found in the appendix. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     Following the termination of their work contracts, on 30 July 2007 the applicants initiated separate proceedings before the Çerkezköy Labour Court, requesting their severance, notice and overtime pay. During the proceedings, the domestic court heard from witnesses and requested expert reports to determine the facts of each case. 4.     On 21 July 2008 the Çerkezköy Labour Court delivered separate judgments in respect of each applicant and concluded that the termination of their work contracts had been based on valid reasons. It further dismissed the applicants’ claims regarding severance and notice pay; however some of the applicants were granted compensation for overtime pay. 5.     On 21 April 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments of the first instance court. On 11 June 2009 the final decisions were notified on the applicants. COMPLAINTS 6.     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. 7.     The applicants further alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair. According to the applicants, the first instance court had failed in the evaluation of evidence and in conducting a thorough examination of the facts of the cases. The applicants further complained that the decisions of the domestic courts lacked adequate reasoning and that the domestic courts could not be considered impartial since the decisions were in favour of the defendants. THE LAW A.     Concerning the length of the proceedings 8.     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. 9.     The Court notes that 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) to deal with, inter alia , applications concerning the length of proceedings that were lodged with the Court. Subsequently, in the case of Turgut and Others v.   Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), this remedy was considered to be a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings and the case was declared inadmissible on account of the applicants’ failure to resort to that new remedy. 10.     Turning to the facts before it, the Court considers that there are no particular circumstances in the instant case preventing the applicants from using that new remedy in relation to their complaints. 11.     It therefore concludes that is part of the application should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.     Concerning the fairness of proceedings 12.     The applicants raised further complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. 13.     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. 14.     It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to 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 15 February 2018.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar   President Appendix     Ms Sevim SEZER, who was born in 1963, lives in Tekirdağ.     Ms Naile AYDEMİR, who was born in 1965, lives in Tekirdağ.     Mr Ali Rıza AYDİLEK, who was born in 1960, lives in Tekirdağ.     Mr Sinan AYDIN, who was born in 1975, lives in Tekirdağ.     Mr Aydın BAYRAKTAR, who was born in 1973, lives in Tekirdağ.     Ms Cemile ÇEVİK, who was born in 1956, lives in Tekirdağ.     Mr Abdullah ÇOBAN, who was born in 1979, lives in Tekirdağ.     Ms Şadiye GÖKBULUT, who was born in 1964, lives in Tekirdağ.     Ms Hava GÖRGÜLÜ, who was born in 1961, lives in Çerkezköy. Ms Dervişe İBİŞ, who was born in 1953, lives in Tekirdağ. Ms Nutfiye KÖROĞLU, who was born in 1959, lives in Tekirdağ. Mr Ecevit KURT, who was born in 1975, lives in Tekirdağ. Mr Cevat POLAT, who was born in 1979, lives in Tekirdağ. Ms Dilber SÜDÜTEMİZ, who was born in 1972, lives in Tekirdağ. Mr Gürkan TUNCA, who was born in 1975, lives in Tekirdağ. Mr Erdem YILMAZ, who was born in 1979, lives in Kırklareli.