CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 12 mars 2013

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE238DD5 { width:36.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF7AE3672 { width:150.61pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s6597089D { height:88.6pt } .s7E0F3F91 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3C2CFC22 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s684B547D { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s9026E8B1 { height:45.7pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s9D1D0844 { margin-left:25.94pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:13.76pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3DFB756B { height:58.35pt } .sE511E089 { height:74.55pt } .s1F97756B { height:59.45pt } .sAE67E8B1 { height:44.3pt } .sB5A0042A { height:7.8pt } .s18656468 { margin-left:31.5pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:8.2pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 42927/10 Muzaffer DİLDİRİM against Turkey and 14 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 12   March   2013 as a Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President,   Danutė Jočienė,   Dragoljub Popović,   András Sajó,   Işıl Karakaş,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates set out in the annexe hereto, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr B. Kaşka, a lawyer practising in İzmir. Information about the applications and the domestic proceedings is set out in the appendix. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicants were employed as civil servants by Petkim A.Ş., a State-owned petrochemical company, which was privatised in 2007. On 28   November 2008 the applicants submitted a written request ( dilekçe ) to their employer, asking to be considered under “4/C status”, a public scheme whereby civil servants could request a transfer to another public entity if they did not wish to be employed under contract with the newly privatised company. 4.     On the same date, Petkim A.Ş. acknowledged receipt of the written requests and confirmed that the applicants’ employment contracts had therefore been terminated. The applicants received the financial compensation to which they were entitled under their employment contracts, including notice and severance pay. 5.     In December 2008 the applicants instituted proceedings in the Karşıyaka Labour Court, claiming that their work contracts had, in fact, been unilaterally terminated by their employer unfairly, and requesting their reinstatement at work. 6.     During the proceedings, a number of witnesses on behalf of the applicants and the employer were heard, and all the relevant documentary evidence was gathered by the trial court. 7.     On the basis of the evidence before it, the Labour Court held that the allegation that the applicants had felt compelled to submit the written requests for fear that they would not receive notice and severance pay could not be considered as “coercion”, as the applicants should have known that they had a legitimate claim to those entitlements, which was enforceable through the domestic courts irrespective of any request they had submitted. Moreover, the court observed that the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegation of coercion with any evidence, except for the statements of their colleagues, the reliability of which was found questionable since they were in the same situation as the applicants. In its judgment, the court further stated that the applicants had asked to be considered for temporary employment in another public entity under the “4/C status” scheme. Against that background, the court was convinced that an agreement had been established between the employer and the applicants on the conditions of the termination of their employment contracts. For those reasons, in September 2009 the Karşıyaka Labour Court rejected the applicants’ requests for reinstatement. 8.     The Court of Cassation upheld those judgments. COMPLAINTS 9.     Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the legally prescribed one-month time-limit to challenge an allegedly unfair dismissal before a labour court was very short, impeding their right of access to a court. 10.     Moreover, the applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the first-instance court had not adequately examined their arguments and had unfairly dismissed their cases, having based its decisions on their written requests, which had been submitted under pressure. In this connection, the applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, as a result of their unfair dismissals, they had sustained financial loss and their families had had to face substantial difficulties. 11.     The applicants argued under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Court of Cassation had not sufficiently reasoned its decisions and had delivered contradictory decisions in similar cases. In this regard, the applicants claimed that they had submitted their written requests under pressure, fearing that they would not receive notice and severance pay. 12.     Lastly, the applicants complained under the same head that the domestic courts had not observed the three-month time-limit prescribed by the Labour Act (Law no. 4857) and had failed to conclude the proceedings within a reasonable time. THE LAW 13.     In view of the similarity of the cases, the Court finds it appropriate to join them and examine them together pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court. 14.     Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the one-month statutory time-limit for lodging an application with a labour court was very brief, and thus breached their right of access to a court. 15.     The Court notes from the outset that none of the applicants appears to have been adversely affected by the allegedly short time-limit, as they all managed to bring proceedings before the Karşıyaka Labour Court. The Court reiterates that the right of access to a court is not an absolute one, and may be subjected to legitimate restrictions in the interests of the proper administration of justice. In this respect, any limitation or restriction is considered to be compatible with Article 6, provided that it does not impair the very essence of the right concerned and pursues a legitimate aim while respecting the relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom , 28   May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93, and Berger v. France , no. 48221/99, §   30, ECHR 2002-X). 16.     In the present cases, having particular regard to the requirement of expeditious adjudication of labour disputes by domestic courts and to the proper administration of justice in general, the Court considers that the imposition of a statutory one-month time-limit for bringing proceedings before the labour courts does not appear to constitute a disproportionate restriction on the applicants’ right of access to a court. 17.     It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 18.     The applicants alleged, under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, that the domestic courts had not adequately examined their claims that they had been pressured to submit written requests to their employer which had led to the termination of their employment contracts. Moreover, the applicants argued under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 that they and their families had suffered from the financial implications of their unfair dismissals. In this regard, the applicants claimed that they had submitted the written requests under pressure, fearing that they might not otherwise receive their entitlement to notice and severance pay. 19.     The Court considers at the outset that the applicants’ complaints should be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention alone, as they are closely linked to their allegations that they were denied a fair trial. 20.     In the instant cases, the Court notes that although the applicants’ contracts were terminated within the privatisation programme of Petkim   A.Ş., they all received the financial compensation to which they were entitled, including notice and severance pay, and were given the prospect of applying for employment with another public institution. It has not been established that the requests submitted by the applicants on 28   November 2008 were signed under pressure. In this regard, the Court notes that the national courts examined the applicants’ complaints in the light of the available evidence, heard a number of witnesses on behalf of the parties, examined all the relevant documentary evidence, and concluded that there was no evidence of any kind of pressure as alleged by the applicants. 21.     In the light of the submissions in the case files, the Court observes that the applicants were given opportunities to make submissions in connection with their allegations and to challenge the evidence adduced against them. In that regard, the applicants appear to have enjoyed an adversarial hearing during the proceedings before the Karşıyaka Labour Court. Moreover, the first-instance court based its decisions on substantial evidence and provided adequate reasoning for dismissing the applicants’ claims of coercion. There is no element which might lead the Court to conclude that the domestic courts acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner in establishing the facts or interpreting the domestic law (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). 22.     The Court, therefore, rejects this part of the applications under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention as being manifestly-ill founded. 23.     Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the Court of Cassation had not provided sufficiently reasoned decisions and that it had delivered contradictory decisions in similar cases. 24.     Having regard to the applicants’ submissions in the case files and the Court of Cassation case-law to which they referred, the Court considers that the mentioned Court of Cassation’s case-law refers to different facts and therefore does not contradict the judgment handed down in the present case (see, a contrario , Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no.   13279/05, § 61, 20 October 2011). 25.     As to the applicants’ complaints that the Court of Cassation’s decisions were not adequately reasoned, the Court reiterates that Article   6   §   1 of the Convention obliges the domestic courts to give reasons for their judgments, but this cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument put forward by the parties. The extent of the duty to give reasons may vary according to the nature of the decision. In the instant cases, the Court observes that the applicants’ main arguments concerning the alleged coercion to which they were exposed were not left unanswered by the trial court and were duly addressed in the judgments. Subsequently, in the appeal proceedings the Court of Cassation simply endorsed the factual and legal reasoning of the lower court. Bearing in mind the requirements of procedural economy pursued by the appeal court, the Court considers that the adoption of relatively brief reasoning by the Court of Cassation in the dismissal of the applicants’ appeals does not fall foul of Article 6 of the Convention. 26.     It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 27.     The applicants contended under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the domestic proceedings had been excessive and at odds with the domestic law prescribing a three-month time-limit for the resolution of the allegation of unfair dismissal from employment. 28.     The Court notes that it has already examined and dismissed an applicant’s complaint in a similar case (see Çalık v. Turkey, no. 3675/07, decision of 31 August 2010). It considers that the length of proceedings in the present applications, which lasted no more than one year and two months before two instances, does not exceed the reasonable time requirement guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and the domestic courts do not appear to have failed to act with the required due diligence when determining the applicants’ claims. 29.     This part of the applications is, therefore, manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Stanley Naismith   Guido Raimondi   Registrar   President         No Application Nos. Lodged on Applicants’ names dates of birth places of residence Dates on which cases were lodged before the domestic court Dates of first-instance court’s decision Dates of appeal court’s decision Total length of proceedings   42927/10 05/07/2010 Muzaffer DİLDİRİM 06/01/1974 İzmir   26/12/2008 09/09/2009 07/12/2009 Notified on 5.1.2010 1 year   46406/10 05/07/2010 İbrahim TÜRKEKUL 01/01/1963 İzmir   29/12/2008 09/09/2009 07/12/2009 Notified on 5.1.2010 1 year   46416/10 05/07/2010 Hayreddin ÇERİKÇİOĞLU 01/01/1964 İzmir   26/12/2008 09/09/2009 07/12/2009 Notified on 5.1.2010 1 year   47585/10 14/07/2010 Kadir DENİZ İzmir   26/12/2008 28/09/2009 07/12/2009 Notified on 30.4.2010 1 year   47596/10 14/07/2010 Mukadder KOCATÜRK 01/01/1960   26/12/2008 28/09/2009 15/02/2009 Notified on 30.4.2010 1 year and 2 months   49241/10 30/06/2010 İbrahim KIRAY 17/02/1965 İzmir   26/12/2008 09/09/2009 07/12/2009 Notified on 30.12.2010 1 year   49261/10 14/07/2010 Gürhan GÜNEY İzmir   29/12/2008 28/09/2009 15/02/2009 Notified on 16.4.2010   1 year and 2 months   49262/10 14/07/2010 İsmail BADI İzmir   29/12/2008 28/09/2009 15/02/2009 Notified on 6.7.2010   1 year and 2 months   49298/10 14/07/2010 Levent MIZGALI İzmir   29/12/2008 28/09/2009 15/02/2009 Notified on 30.4.2010   1 year and 2 months   49303/10 14/07/2010 Naci CANOĞLU İzmir   25/12/2008 28/09/2009 15/02/2009 Notified on 30.4.2010   1 year and 2 months   49305/10 14/07/2010 Hüseyin GÜL İzmir 29/12/2008 28/09/2009 15/02/2009 Notified on 5.5.2010   1 year and 2 months   49310/10 14/07/2010 Aynur GÖZÜBÜYÜK-OĞULLARI İzmir   31/12/2008 28/09/2009 15/02/2009 Notified on 30.4.2010 1 year and 2 months   49315/10 05/07/2010 Ali ERDİN 10/11/1965 İzmir   26/12/2008 09/09/2009 07/12/2009 Notified on 5.1.2010 1 year   49377/10 05/07/2010 Burhan DAĞLAR 05/08/1963 İzmir   29/12/2008 09/09/2009 07/12/2009 Notified on 5.1.2010 1 year   49384/10 14/07/2010 Ömer ERTÜRK İzmir   29/12/2008 28/09/2009 15/02/2009 Notified on 6.7.2010   1 year and 2 months