CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } .s6107BC22 { width:23.02pt; display:inline-block } .s6E8303AC { width:184.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; 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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sE6F9B57F { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s858CF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11.5pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4D6B4573 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; list-style-position:inside } .s987DB328 { width:15.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 21678/09 Mustafa Kemal DERİNKÖK against Turkey and 34 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10   December 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President ,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller, 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 brought actions before various civil courts and/or criminal proceedings were instituted against them in various domestic courts. While certain procedures lasted several years, some proceedings are still pending. 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 alleged violation of Article   13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. 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 ARTICLE   6 §   1 OF THE CONVENTION The applicants complained that the length of proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of 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 or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...” 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.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   13 OF THE CONVENTION Certain applicants also complain that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. They rely in this regard Article   13 of the Convention, which provides:   “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” The Court recalls that it has also held that the Compensation Commission established by Law No. 6384 provides to the applicants for a remedy within the meaning of Article   13 of the Convention to complain about the length of proceedings for the purposes of Article   6 §   1 relating to all applications pending before the Court, but not yet communicated to the respondent Government before 23   September 2012 ( Müdür Turgut and Others , cited above, §   59). It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3   (a) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.     Seçkin Erel   Dragoljub Popović Acting Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Notes   21678/09 31/03/2009 Mustafa Kemal DERİNKÖK 10/11/1944 İstanbul   Court of Cassation; E:   2006/11471, K:   2007/14378   31211/09 16/04/2009 Serkan KOÇAK 01/01/1986 İstanbul Murat DİKAN Üsküdar Assize Court, E:   2007/46,.K   : 2010/72   40479/09 23/07/2009 Tülay TİLKİ 01/01/1965 Mersin Mustafa ÇİNKILIÇ Court of Cassation, E:   2008/17127, K:   2009/3182   14048/10 22/02/2010 Nurettin UZUN 25/07/1963 Ankara Selda KUTLAY Sandıklı Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2007/493, K:   2009/380   15778/10 26/02/2010 Şeyhmus KORKMAZ 17/11/1981 İstanbul İnan AKMEŞE Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2006/207, K:   2008/643   18609/10 14/01/2010 Özdemir KILIÇ 01/12/1970 İstanbul İnan AKMEŞE Bakırköy Assize Court, E:   2004/63, K:   2006/15   18669/10 05/03/2010 GOYATUR TURİZM VE TİC. LTD. ŞTİ. TÜZEL KİŞİLİĞİ Muğla Mahmut SEKDUR Supreme Administrative Court, E:   2008/3771, K:   2009/3542   36683/10 10/05/2010 Mehmet Ata URUÇ 05/06/1962 Kocaeli   Adem KAYAER 02/11/1960 Kocaeli     Mehmet Ali KILINÇ 13/09/1959 Kocaeli   Erdoğan ŞEN 03/10/1965 Kocaeli   Selahattin ARSLAN 01/02/1952 Kocaeli   The Assize Court, E:   2009/964   41687/10 07/07/2010 Hasan BAYAR 01/01/1982 Bern İnan AKMEŞE Beyoğlu Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2006/14263, K:   2008/2018             47141/10 23/06/2010 Ferda ULUPINAR 30/04/1965 Antalya Gökcen GÜVEN ÇİFCİBAŞI Court of Cassation, E:   2008/150, K:   2009/46             58219/10 03/08/2010 Vasfiye DÖRTLEMEZ 19/12/1920 Ankara Halim PEKCAN Tarsus Cadastral Court, E:   2002/12, K:   2008/14             60802/10 03/08/2010 Hasan BAYAR 01/01/1982 Bern İnan AKMEŞE Beyoğlu 2. Criminal Court of general Jurisdiction, E:   2008/39, K:   2010/161             60805/10 19/08/2010 Hasan BAYAR 01/01/1982 Bern İnan AKMEŞE Beyoğlu 2. Criminal Court of general Jurisdiction, E:2008/37, K:2010/135.             60807/10 17/08/2010 Hasan BAYAR 01/01/1982 Bern İnan AKMEŞE Beyoğlu 2. Criminal Court of general Jurisdiction, E:   2008/43, K:   2010/136             9728/11 03/12/2010 Sultan KAYA (ÖZEN) Sivas   Ali KAYA   Hasan KAYA   Akgül KAYA (ŞİMŞEK)   Hürriyet KAYA (ŞİMŞEK)   Hüseyin ŞİMŞEK   Göher ŞİMŞEK   Mahmut ÖZTÜRK   Sakine ÖZTÜRK   Perihan ÖZDOĞAN ( ŞİMŞEK)   Turan ÖZDOĞAN   Özkan ÖZDOĞAN   Özcan ÖZDOĞAN   Cihan ÖZDOĞAN   Fidan ŞİMŞEK (ÖZDOĞAN)   Nahide ŞİMŞEK (ÖZTÜRK)   Zeynep ŞİMŞEK (ERDOĞAN)   Eyüp ŞİMŞEK   Ali ŞİMŞEK   Orhan ÖZTÜRK   Burhan ÖZTÜRK   Ayhan ÖZTÜRK Metin FİLORİNALI Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2008/225, K:   2010/58             58787/11 04/05/2011 Sabriye KÜÇÜK 01/01/1961 Zonguldak   Fethi Oğuzcan KÜÇÜK 01/01/1987 Zonguldak Celal ÇECE Zonguldak Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2003/254, K:   2010/400             4627/12 11/01/2012 Sercan AVŞAR 10/12/1988 İstanbul İnan AKMEŞE İstanbul 13. Assize Court, E:   2008/56             10712/12 16/12/2011 Erdal ÜLGÜ 01/06/1975 İstanbul İnan AKMEŞE İstanbul Magistrates Court, E:   2011/650, K:   2011/104             19608/12 02/01/2012 Hakan TEZEL 14/01/1969 Izmir   İzmir Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2002/457, K:   2010/322.             22975/12 24/04/2012 Ayhan İLHAN 31/03/1971 İstanbul İnan AKMEŞE Küçükçekmece Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, E: 2011/283, K:   2011/945             25173/12 25/10/2011 Hakan TEZEL 14/01/1969 Izmir   Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   1998/107, K:   1998/237             51963/12 25/07/2012 Abdürrahim ÇANKIR 10/05/1948 İstanbul İnan AKMEŞE Bakırköy 9 Assize Court, E:   2010/203, K:   2011/446.             54558/12 30/07/2012 İbrahim Halil BEYHAN 15/03/1968 İstanbul İpek KADİRHAN Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2007/790, K:   2012/746             58865/12 15/06/2012 Menaf ERYILMAZ 06/05/1943 İstanbul İnan AKMEŞE İstanbul 6. Assize Court E:   2006/221             77689/12 22/09/2012 Barış KARAKOYUN 01/01/1981   Harun Reşit ÇAĞLAYAN 01/01/1988 Ali Şükran KARAKOYUN 01/01/1982   Onur ASLAN 01/01/1988 Abdulhakim KAYA İstanbul Assize Court, E:   2007/210, K:   2010/107             81245/12 21/09/2012 İhsan GÜRBÜZ 01/01/1975 İstanbul   Hasari DELİCE 28/10/1982 İstanbul Yusuf Kenan ALTAN Bakırköy Assize Court, E:   2006/7, K:   2007/396             81767/12 19/09/2012 Abidin ÇABUK 01/01/1953 Mersin Fazıl Ahmet TAMER Üsküdar Assize Court, E:   1995/238, K:   2011/125             81784/12 18/09/2012 Abdülcelil TULGAR 01/01/1966 İstanbul Ömer Faruk SEVGİLİ Ankara 3.Labour Court, E:   2007/388             118/13 22/09/2012 Abdulvahap AKTAŞ 01/01/1980 İstanbul   Zeyni ASLAN 01/01/1988 İstanbul   Ahmet BARAN 01/01/1987 İstanbul       Mazlum AKTAŞ 01/01/1990 İstanbul   Seyfettin AKIN 01/01/1980 İstanbul   Kutbettin OKTAY 01/01/1991 İstanbul   İhsan DEMİR 01/01/1990 İstanbul Hüseyin BOĞATEKİN İstanbul 13. Assize Court, E:   2009/266             237/13 20/09/2012 İsmail KILINÇ 01/01/1969 İstanbul Yusuf Kenan ALTAN Kadıköy Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2008/1362             9765/13 06/07/2012 Menaf ERYILMAZ 06/05/1943 İstanbul İnan AKMEŞE İstanbul Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2012/283, K:   2012/491             29822/13 24/04/2012 Ağabey GÖRER 15/07/1979 İstanbul İnan AKMEŞE Court of Cassation, E:   2009/17607, K:   2011/18464             30271/13 01/03/2012 Ayhan İLHAN 31/03/1971 İstanbul İnan AKMEŞE Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2011/283, K:   2011/945             31230/13 07/09/2012 Özgür TÜRK 22/01/1980 Switzerland Metin FİLORİNALI İstanbul Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2007/625             31238/13 07/09/2012 Özgür TÜRK 22/01/1980 Switzerland Metin FİLORİNALI Gebze Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, E:   2010/686