CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mars 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 150 March 2012 Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey   - 24240/07 Judgment 20.3.2012 [Section II] Article 46 Pilot judgment General measures Respondent State required to introduce an effective remedy securing adequate redress for excessive length of proceedings   Facts – In 1970 the applicant’s father brought proceedings before the land tribunal seeking the registration of plots of land in his name. After his death in 1995, the applicant took the necessary steps to be joined as a civil party to the proceedings in his place. The proceedings were still pending when the Court examined the application. Law – Article 46: The Court found a violation of Article 6 §   1 and Article   13 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings at issue and the lack of an effective remedy by which to complain of that length. The violation of the applicant’s rights had arisen out of a structural problem in Turkey. As of 31   December 2011, over 2,700 applications stemming from the same issue had been pending before the Court (of which 2,373 had not been communicated to the Turkish Government and 330   had been communicated). Against that background, the Court decided to apply the pilot-judgment procedure, in view of the growing number of applicants and potential judgments finding a violation. It also drew the Government’s attention to the fact that they had already adopted measures aimed at putting an end to a structural or systemic problem concerning displaced Greek Cypriots owning immovable property in the northern part of Cyprus. It further noted with interest the legislative reforms already enacted, in particular the individual appeal to the Constitutional Court due to enter into force on 23   September 2012, as well as the pledge made by the Minister of Justice to remedy this structural problem. The Court held that, with regard to the applications pending before it and those lodged by 23   September 2012, Turkey had to put in place, no later than one year from the date on which the judgment in the present case became final, an effective remedy affording adequate and sufficient redress in cases where judicial proceedings exceeded a reasonable time. The Court further decided to adjourn examination of similar applications not yet communicated to the Turkish Government and those lodged by 23   September 2012. Applications already communicated would continue to be examined by the Court under the normal procedure. Article 41: EUR 15,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes