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

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 34460/08 Abdulkadir DEMİR 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 8 April 2008, 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 Abdulkadir Demir, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1933 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Çağer, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 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 20 February 2001 the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the Birecik Civil Court of General Jurisdiction for de facto expropriation of his property. 5.     On 29 May 2001 the domestic court awarded a total sum of 14,428,0400,000   Turkish liras (TRL) [1] plus interest at the statutory rate. 6.     On 10 December 2001 the case was upheld by the Court of Cassation. 7.     On 25 April 2002 the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings to obtain the awarded compensation. 8.     On 5 May 2006 the administration made a partial payment of 39,714   Turkish Liras (TRY) to the applicant. 9.     On 22 April 2008 the Birecik Execution Court held that the administration still had an outstanding debt of TRY 9,479.75. B.     Relevant domestic law 10.     A description of the domestic law and practice with respect to the Compensation Commission mentioned below may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINTS 11.     The applicant mainly complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention of the failure and delay of the domestic authorities to enforce the domestic court judgments in full. 12.     The applicant also complained that Article 6 of the Convention had been violated for the lack of reasoning given in the domestic courts’ judgments and the absence of impartiality and independence of the domestic courts. Under the same provision, he further complained that the expropriation procedures in respect of his property had not been concluded within a reasonable time. 13.     Finally the applicant complained that his right under Article 2 of the Protocol No. 7 had been violated. THE LAW A.     As to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 14.     The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the local authorities had failed to fully comply with the judgment of the domestic courts which had awarded him a certain amount of compensation for the de facto expropriation of his property. 15.     The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a 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 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 judgment 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 and Others , (decision cited above, §§ 24-36), and Turgut and Others v.   Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013). 19.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that this part of the application should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.     Other Complaints 20.     Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the lack of reasoning in the domestic court judgment and the absence of impartiality and independence of the domestic courts. He also complained about the excessive length of expropriation procedures in respect of his property. The applicant further alleged a violation of Article   2 of Protocol No. 7. 21.     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 these parts of the application are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with the 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 [1] .     Equivalent of 14,428.04 TRY. On 1 January 2005 the Turkish Lira ( TRY ) entered into circulation, replacing the former Turkish Lira (TRL). 1 TRY = TRL 1,000,000.