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 } .s7ED9CCD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s20DA5F6 { width:12pt; display:inline-block } .sFBA785BD { width:170.26pt; display:inline-block } .s2AEACEE1 { width:40.02pt; display:inline-block } .s73F569FB { width:128.26pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 30690/08 Adem ÇALIK 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 13 June 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Adem Çalık, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Samsun. He was represented before the Court by Mr   F.   Şenocak, a lawyer practising in Samsun. 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. On an unspecified date, the applicant signed a contract with a cooperative called Öz-Tim Toplu Konut Yapı Kooperatifi (“the cooperative”) for a dwelling belonging to the latter. Between 1995 and 1996, having paid a sum of money, he expected to receive a flat from the cooperative in a newly built block. On 29 January 1999 the applicant initiated civil proceedings before the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction against the cooperative. The procedure lasted about eight years and four months before the national court. B.     Relevant domestic law A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür   Turgut and Others v.   Turkey (dec), no.   4860/09, §§   19-26, 26   March 2013 . COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national court were not concluded within a reasonable time. The applicant alleges a violation of Article   13 of the Convention and that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS The applicant 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 applicant 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 applicant should avail himself 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 applicant also complains that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. He relies in this regard on 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 the applicant with 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 ( 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 and   4 of the Convention For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Dragoljub Popović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President