CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB55E796 { width:26.35pt; display:inline-block } .sABCB874F { width:193.94pt; display:inline-block } .sB622B88D { width:38.36pt; display:inline-block } .sD5CCF864 { width:129.92pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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 } .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 } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .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 } .sE42CE089 { height:74.05pt } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 10594/11 Salih TÜRKAN against Turkey and 14 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1   October 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   András Sajó,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, indicated in the Appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the names of the applicants as well as the case and decision numbers of the impugned proceedings appear in the Appendix. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before the various civil courts or civil proceedings were brought against them before the civil courts. While certain procedures lasted several years, some proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts. B.     Relevant domestic law A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national courts had not been concluded within a reasonable time. Certain applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing as domestic judicial authorities had erred in assessment of the evidence and establishment of the facts. Certain applicants also alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that the amounts awarded to them had lost their value due to the length of the proceedings. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule   42 §   1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given the similarity of the facts and of the legal issues raised. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...” The Court observes that the applicants asserted that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of the “reasonable time” requirement in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court found in Müdür Turgut and Others (cited above, §§ 58 and 60) that the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384, insofar as it is, a priori, accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings is a remedy which applicants should make use of. Accordingly, the applicants should avail themselves of the new remedy offered by Law no. 6384. It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION A.     Article 6 § 1 of the Convention Certain applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing as the domestic judicial authorities had erred in assessment of the evidence and establishment of the facts. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. The Court notes that the applicants complained about the outcome of their proceedings, which, unless it was arbitrary, the Court is unable to examine under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants did not complain, and there is no evidence to suggest, that the domestic courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. In the light of all the material in its possession, the Court considers that in the present case the applicants were able to submit their arguments before courts which offered the guarantees set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and which addressed those arguments in decisions that were duly reasoned and not arbitrary (see, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no.   30544/96, § 23-30, ECHR 1999-I).   It follows that these complaints must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. B. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention Having carefully examined certain applicants’ complaints in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that it does 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 applications are 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.   Seçkin Erel   Peer Lorenzen   Acting Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Notes   10594/11 01/12/2010 Salih TÜRKAN 01/01/1940 İzmir   Tahir KALYONCU Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E: 2005/323 K: 2009/449   30681/12 25/04/2012 Bekir KOŞUKOĞLU 04/10/1948 İzmir   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 2 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E:2005/304,K:2010/121   30682/12 25/04/2012 Kerime KAHRAMAN 01/01/1952 İzmir   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 2 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E:2005/299, K:2010/120   30683/12 25/04/2012 Muzaffer SAYGILI 22/05/1966 Bursa   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 2 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E:2005/429, K: 2010/122   30688/12 25/04/2012 Ayşegül GÜRSOY 07/03/1962 İzmir   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 3 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, E:2005/280, K:2010/493   30689/12 25/04/2012 Halil MUTLU 15/04/1969 İzmir   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 3 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, E:2005/280, K:2010/493   30691/12 25/04/2012 Aydın ÇAĞLAYAN 01/01/1967 İzmir   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 3 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, E:2005/280, K:2010/493   30692/12 25/04/2012 Seyat HACIOĞLU 17/02/1966 İzmir Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 3 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, E:2005/280, K:2010/493   30694/12 25/04/2012 Murat GÜLER 27/01/1966 Bursa   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 2 .Civil Court of General Jurisdiction E:2005/290, K:2010/119             44326/12 25/04/2012 Mümün KAHRAMAN 10/06/1966 Bursa   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court(in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726               44327/12 25/04/2012 Muhittin MUTLU 11/03/1962 Bursa   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court(in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726             44328/12 25/04/2012 Berkant SERBEST 06/04/1973 İstanbul   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court(in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726             44329/12 25/04/2012 Zülker AYYILDIZ 01/05/1970 Bursa   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court (in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726             44330/12 25/04/2012 Sabahattin ALİOĞLU 08/05/1963 Bursa Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court(in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726             44331/12 25/04/2012 Recep TOPÇU 27/09/1963 Bursa   Tahir KALYONCU Ankara 10. Magistrates’ Court (in civil matters), E:2005/649,K:2010/1726