CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 mai 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; 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 } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s731EBF6B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; font-size:14pt } .s7BB60D65 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA845BF37 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s99668499 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sAF0B4C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFC33EBC3 { width:26.21pt; display:inline-block } .s71EAD531 { width:200.14pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 36110/97 by Galip YALMAN and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15   May   2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   E. Levits ,   Mr   A. Kovler, judges , and   Mr   S. Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 November 1996, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the Court’s partial decision of 30 March 2000, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Galip Yalman, Bahattin Sarısoy, Osman Çağlayan and Yusuf Çamca are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr Selahattin Esmer, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On various dates in 1989 the applicants brought individual actions before the Sinop Assize Court against the Treasury, pursuant to Law no.   466. They requested compensation for their unjustified detention on remand. On 20   October 1989 the court decided to join the applicants’ cases. On 15 December 1993 the Sinop Assize Court awarded compensation to the applicants. The applicants appealed, arguing that the amount of compensation awarded was not sufficient. On 31 January 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court. On 6 June 1995 the Sinop Assize Court increased the amount of compensation. On 15 June 1995 the applicants again appealed. On 30   May   1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the judgment of the assize court. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their case, which commenced in 1989 and terminated in 1996, was not heard within a reasonable time as required by the Convention. THE LAW 1. Government’s preliminary objection The Government state that the applicants failed to comply with the six-month rule. They observe that the application was lodged by the applicants on 15 May 1997, almost a year after the final decision of the Court of Cassation. The Government conclude that the application should be declared inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants contend that the case was lodged on 29   November   1996, which is within six months of the date of the last decision of the national authorities. The Court observes that the application was lodged with the Commission on 29 November 1996. The date mentioned by the Government is in fact the date of registration of the application by the Secretariat of the Commission, i. e. 15 May 1997. Consequently, the Court finds that the applicants filed their application within the six-month time limit and that the application cannot be rejected on the basis of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 2. Merits a) The period to be taken into consideration The Court notes that the applicants lodged their claims for compensation on various unspecified dates in 1989. The proceedings came to an end on 30   May 1996 when the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ appeal. The proceedings thus lasted in the region of seven years. b) Arguments The Government state that in order to decide on the compensation issue the Sinop Assize Court had to request the case files from the courts which decided on the applicants’ detention on remand. Furthermore, they maintain that the applicants’ case involved several appeal stages. They refer in this connection to the case-law of the Court which establishes that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings depends, among other things, on the particular circumstances of the case ( Konig v. Germany , judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, § 99 and Yağcı and Sargın v. Turkey , judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 139, § 99).   They conclude that bearing in mind the amount of documents which had to be requested from the other courts and the several appeal stages involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive. The applicants contend that the need to obtain evidence from other courts could not justify the length of the proceedings. They state that requesting documents or case files from other courts is a common occurrence in court proceedings. If this procedure causes delay in the proceedings, it had to be concluded that there was a serious problem in the trial system. The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that this complaint raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits. It concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar   President