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 } .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 } .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 } .sA14D0A47 { width:109.98%; border-collapse:collapse } .s68A509F { width:9.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA5BFD88A { width:27.2%; 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 } .sF339CAD8 { width:17.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5977794E { width:17%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s582B6897 { width:28.94%; 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 } .s89700CF5 { margin-left:33.01pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s3F1FBA1B { width:27.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E67D135 { width:17.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s820C353E { width:17%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAD05385B { width:28.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF93B332A { margin-left:36pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 41798/06 Emine ATASEVEN 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 3   October 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are represented by Mr   K.   Hatipoğlu, a lawyer practising in Düzce. 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 1972 several persons brought proceedings against the applicants, requesting the annulment of a cadastral survey which found that certain plots of land be registered in the name of the applicants. Subsequently, an annotation was made in the Land Registry in order to prevent the sale of this property. On 11 October 1978 a caution was registered in the Registry against the applicants. On 12 February 2005 the Düzce Cadastral Court dismissed the case and ordered that the impugned plots be registered in the applicants’ name, as determined by the cadastral survey. On 31 May 2005 the caution was removed following the applicants’ request. On 13   April 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment 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 maintain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their right to peaceful enjoyment of property was violated by the excessive length of the proceedings in that they could neither use nor sell the property due to the annotation and the caution in the Land Register. 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, as Law no.   6384 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 applicants 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   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     No. Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   Emine ATASEVEN 01/08/1969 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU   İsmail ATASEVEN 02/03/1968 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU   Cemile KILIÇ 01/01/1946 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU   Ayşe KAHVECİ 01/01/1952 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU   Hafize ARSLAN 10/04/1967 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU   Osman ATASEVEN 23/09/1931 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU   Meryem KOÇ 29/03/1977 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU   Reyhan AYTAN 01/06/1955 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU   Cemile YILMAZ 02/05/1964 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU   Fatma TEZCAN 08/05/1964 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU   Münevver AYTAN 08/08/1961 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU   İdris AYKUT 02/04/1973 Düzce Kudret HATİPOĞLU