CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 janvier 2014

.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 } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .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 } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .sD71F7D5C { width:156.92pt; display:inline-block } .s2AEACEE1 { width:40.02pt; display:inline-block } .s73F569FB { width:128.26pt; 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 } .sA1709943 { width:114.16%; border-collapse:collapse } .s68A509F { width:9.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sB198A8A0 { width:32.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA4EACBD { width:14.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC898EFEF { width:42.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBBD96338 { width:9.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sBA6491B3 { width:32.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s171269E6 { width:14.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s95C339FE { width:42.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3192C8A1 { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 20236/06 Müge SARGIN and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28   January 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29   April 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are represented by Mr   M.   S.   Tanrıkulu, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1976 the applicants brought proceedings, requesting the annulment of a cadastral survey which stated that certain land should be registered in the Treasury’s name as it was neither occupied nor owned by private persons. On 27   May 2000 the Bodrum Cadastral Court dismissed the applicants’ case and held that the land should be registered in the Treasury’s name. On 15   July 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment. On 17   October 2005 the Court of Cassation rejected the request for rectification. On 31   October 2005 the final decision was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court. 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 complain under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national court were not concluded within a reasonable time. The applicants allege violation of Article   13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. They maintain under Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of property was violated by the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS The applicants complained that the length of the 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 ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...” The Court observes that a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey after the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). The Court recalls that in its decision in the case of Turgut and others v. Turkey (no.   4860/09, 26 March 2013), it declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as a new domestic remedy had been envisaged. In so doing, the Court in particular considered that this new remedy was, a priori , accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings. The Court further recalls that in its judgment in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (cited above, § 77) it stressed that it could pursue the examination of applications of this type which were already communicated to the Government. The Government requested the Court to declare this application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, considering Law   no.   6384 which provides for a remedy capable of redressing the Convention grievances of persons who complain about the length of proceedings. The applicants contested the Government’s argument. In the light of the case of Müdür Turgut and Others, cited above, there are no exceptional circumstances capable of exempting the present applicant from the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. Accordingly, the applicants should avail themselves of the new remedy offered by Law   no.   6384. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   13 OF THE CONVENTION The 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 to 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. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   1 OF PROTOCOL NO.   1 OF THE CONVENTION The applicants further complained that the length of the proceedings complained of had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1. Having carefully examined the 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 Declares the application inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Dragoljub Popović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix     N o . Applicant Place of residence Representative   Müge SARGIN Ankara Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Necmi CAVLI Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Şöhret AKGÖNEN Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Yüksel SEZEN Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Ali SEZEN Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Mensure BOZKURT Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Pakize TÜRKÖZ Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Salime ŞENGÜL Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Ramazan İNECİ Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Hevse İNECİ Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Fatma YILMAZ Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Halime İNECİ Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Hasan İNECİ Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Zübeyde MENGÜÇ Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   O. Necmi CAVLI Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Ülke SAVAŞ Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Kamuran ÖNCEL İzmir Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Ahter Gönül CAĞLAR İzmir Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Mehmet ÖLMEZ Istanbul Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Ali Vasfi TOKER Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Naciye TOKER Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Mustafa Çetin TOKER Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Mehmet TOKER Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   İbrahim TOKER Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Pembe TOKER Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Güzide ÇIRAKOĞLU Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Güzin ERBİL Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Mediha CEYLAN İzmir Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   İkbal TOKER Aydın Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Hatice TOKER Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Hasan TOKER Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Yaşar TOKER Ankara Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Nevse TOKER Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Fatma ERCAN Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Ali TOKER Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Tan KAYA   Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Sevil KURTER   Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Nermin TOPRAKLI Bursa Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Belgin GÜLER İzmir Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Aydoğdu TOKER   Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Süheyla KASAL Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Sevgi TİTİZ Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Sevil ULUBAY Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Ahmet TOKER Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Gülgün ERENLER İzmir Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Melahat ÖZÇERİ Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Semahat İNECİ Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU   Fevzi AKIN Muğla Mustafa Sezgin TANRIKULU