CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 décembre 2000

.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 } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .sA6AB310A { width:188.13pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 52875/99 by Nusret ÇAKIROĞLU against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5   December 2000 as a Chamber composed of   Mrs   W. Thomassen , President ,   Mr   L. Ferrari Bravo ,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste , judges , and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 23 June 1999 and registered on 24 November 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is a Turkish national, born in 1918 and living in Ankara, Turkey. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 1995 the Turkish Telecommunications General Directorate ( Telekom ) notified the applicant that he had to pay interest on his telephone bill on account of his delay in paying the bill. The bill related to use of a telephone line registered in his firm’s name and installed in the firm’s premises. On 23 June 1995 the applicant applied to the Ankara Magistrates’ Court No.   13 for Civil Affairs. He claimed that, according to his firm’s contract with Telekom , interest could not be imposed for late payment of the telephone bill. Also on 23 June 1995, and at the applicant’s request, the Ankara Magistrates’ Court No. 13 for Civil Affairs requested Telekom not to cut off the telephone line pending the outcome of the proceedings. On 28 February 1996 the Ankara Magistrates’ Court No.13 for Civil Affairs ruled in favour of the applicant. On 8 April 1996, following an appeal by Telekom, the Civil Chamber No. 3 of the Court of Cassation quashed the Magistrates’ Court No.   13’s decision on the ground inter alia that Telekom could oblige the applicant to pay interest for late payment of the telephone bill pursuant to clause 23 of the contract between Telekom and the applicant’s firm. When the case was referred back to it, the Ankara Magistrates’ Court No. 13 for Civil Affairs, on 27   June 1996, insisted on upholding its initial decision in favour of the applicant. Telekom appealed. On 4 December 1996 the General Council of the Court of Cassation for Civil Affairs quashed the Magistrates’ Court’s decision with reference to its earlier decision of 8 April 1996. On 9 April 1997 the General Council of the Court of Cassation for Civil Affairs, on the applicant’s request for rectification of its decision of 4   December 1996, quashed the Magistrates’ Court’s decision of 27 June 1996 on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter. In the course of the civil proceedings, the applicant was again notified by Telekom that he had to pay two telephone bills together with interest on account of late payment. The bills and the interest thereon related to two telephone lines installed in his firm’s premises, both of which were registered in the applicant’s name. On 19 August 1996 the Ankara Magistrates’ Court No. 6 for Civil Affairs, at the applicant’s request, ordered Telekom not to cut off the applicant’s telephone lines pending the outcome of the proceedings which the applicant intended to take. On 29 August 1996 the applicant applied to the Ankara Magistrates’ Court No. 5 for Civil Affairs. He claimed that, according to his contract with Telekom , interest could not be imposed for late payment of the telephone bills. On 6 May 1997 the Ankara Magistrates’ Court No. 5 for Civil Affairs declined to hear the case on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter. The applicant then instituted two set of proceedings against Telekom . The first set of proceedings was introduced on this occasion before the Ankara First Instance Court No. 16 on behalf of his firm in whose name one telephone line was registered. The date of re-introduction of the claim was taken to be 23 June 1995 in order to prevent the applicant’s action from being time-barred. The applicant claimed in these proceedings that his firm was not liable to pay interest on account of late payment of telephone charges in respect of this one telephone line. The second set of proceedings was introduced on his own behalf on 29 August 1996 before the Ankara First Instance Court No. 9 in respect of his liability to pay interest on account of late payment of telephone charges in respect of two lines registered in his name and installed in his firm. On 16 July 1997 the Ankara First Instance Court No. 16 ruled that interest on late payment could not be demanded from the applicant’s firm. In its decision the First Instance Court No. 16 pointed out that its judgment was final in view of the subject matter of the case under Article 427 of the Civil Procedural Law. Telekom sought to appeal the decision of 16   July 1997. On 18 September 1997, in a separate decision, the First Instance Court No.   16 rejected Telekom ’s application for appeal. Telekom then appealed against the First Instance Court No. 16’s decision of 18   September 1997. The Civil Chamber No. 13 of the Court of Cassation transferred the file to the Civil Chamber No. 11 since it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the law governing the procedure before the Court of Cassation (Law No. 2797). The Civil Chamber No. 11 in turn transferred the case file to the Civil Chamber No. 19 on the same ground. On 10 March 1998 the Civil Chamber No. 19 of the Court of Cassation ruled in favour of Telekom and quashed the First Instance Court No.   16’s decisions of 16 July 1997 and 18 September 1997. The applicant applied for rectification of the decision of 10 March 1998. On 12   June   1998, at the rectification stage, the Civil Chamber No.   19 reversed its decision of 10   March   1998 and upheld the First Instance Court No.   16’s judgment of 18 September 1997 in which it rejected Telekom ’s application for appeal. On 30 September 1997 the Ankara First Instance Court No. 9 also ruled that interest on late payment could not be demanded from the applicant. On Telekom ’s appeal the Civil Chamber No.13 of the Court of Cassation, on 19   January 1998, quashed the First Instance Court No. 9’s judgment of 30 September 1997. The case was remitted to the First Instance Court No. 9. In a judgment dated 17 July 1998 the First Instance Court No.   9 complied with the judgment of the Court of Cassation and ruled in favour of Telekom . The applicant appealed against the First Instance Court No. 9’s judgment of 17   July 1998. On 1 October 1998 the Civil Chamber No.13 of the Court of Cassation upheld the First Instance Court No. 9’s judgment of 17 July 1998. On 10 December 1998 the applicant’s request for rectification was further rejected. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that the Court of Cassation gave contradictory judgments on the same issue. He further complains about the length of proceedings especially in respect of the action which he instituted on 23   June 1995 and which was only concluded on 12   June   1998. In this respect the applicant invokes Article 6 of the Convention. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complains that the domestic courts reached contradictory conclusions in respect of his disputes with Telekom over his and his firm’s liability to pay interest on account of late payment of telephone bills. The applicant invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides as relevant: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” The Court observes that the domestic courts were faced with two separate issues which they sought to resolve with reference to the terms of the contract signed between the applicant and Telekom . The decisions were reached on the basis of the arguments advanced by the litigants. In the Court’s opinion, the construction placed on the contract by the domestic courts cannot be said to be arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable in the circumstances such as to raise an issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, all the more so since the proceedings do not disclose any appearance of the breach of the procedural fairness requirements expressly or implicitly contained in that provision. 2.     The applicant complains, with reference to Article 6 § 1, that the domestic proceedings were not concluded within a reasonable time. He maintains in particular that there was unreasonable delay in determining his case against Telekom which, although introduced on 23 June 1995, was only the subject of a final decision on 12 June 1998. The Court notes that the impugned proceedings lasted almost three years. In its opinion, although the subject matter of the dispute was by no means complex, the length of the proceedings at issue cannot be considered unreasonable. The Court notes in this connection that the applicant’s claim had to be examined by several instances. It does not appear from the case-file that the domestic courts were guilty of any unnecessary delay, either at first instance or on appeal. The Court must also attach weight to the fact that Telekom was required by court order not to cut off his telephone line pending the outcome of the proceedings. Accordingly, the applicant did not suffer any personal detriment in the conduct of his business relations. Having regard to its established criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings (see, as a recent authority, the Humen v. Poland judgment of 15 October 1999, [GC], no. 26614/95, ECHR 1999, § 60), the Court considers that the particular circumstances of the instant case do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For the above reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Michael O’Boyle   Wilhelmina Thomassen   Registrar   President