CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 juin 2015

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28BDCFEA { width:6.53pt; display:inline-block } .sF7ECFE89 { width:209.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sC7F8CD86 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 18741/04 Bedii Burak BOZBEY against Turkey and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23   June 2015 as a Committee composed of:   András Sajó, President,   Helen Keller,   Robert Spano, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, listed in the appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts. Certain procedures lasted several years, and some are still pending before the domestic courts. The details of the applications appear in the table below. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 4.     A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09 , §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). COMPLAINT 5.     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. THE LAW 6.     Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the present cases, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single decision. 7.     The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. 8.     The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. They maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission: this ground had also been recognised by the Court in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013). 9.     The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no.   24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others , cited above, the Court declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings. 10.     The Court notes that in its decision in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77) it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of this type which had already been communicated to the Government. 11.     However, taking account of the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicants’ failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Turgut and Others . It therefore concludes that the complaint of the excessive length of the civil proceedings must be rejected under Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Rifat Demir v. Turkey , no. 24267/07, § 35, 4   June 2013; and Yiğitdoğan v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 72174/10, § 59, 3 June 2014). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares inadmissible the applications.   Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 2015.   Abel Campos   András Sajó Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Date and Reference Numbers of the Judgments Given by the Domestic Courts   18741/04 19/01/2004 Bedii Burak BOZBEY   1966 -Isparta   Hıdır YILDIZ Gelendost Cadastral Court 1996/015 E. 1999/001 K. 1997/001 E. 1999/004 K. Proceedings were still pending before the Court of Cassation.     48454/06 22/11/2006 Nesrin YILMAZ   1950 - Ankara   Gökçen ZORCU Ankara Administrative Court 2003/456 E. 2003/599 K. The proceedings became final on 7   July 2006.   20637/07 04/05/2007 Binali ÇINAR   1932 - Ardahan   Metin Taylan ÖZYILMAZ Posof Magistrates’ Court 1996/73 E 2005/32 K. The case was subsequently transferred to the Posof Civil Court where the proceedings were still pending     28997/08 09/06/2008 İbrahim GÜNEY   1949 - İstanbul   Metin FİLORİNALI Küçükçekmece Civil Court 2006/555 E. 2006/592K. The proceedings became final on 4 December 2007.   38848/08 04/08/2008 Ercüment ÖZTÜRK   1961 - Eskişehir   Erdinç TOKLU Eskişehir Administrative Court 2003/169 E. 2004/1306 K. Supreme Administrative Court 2005/1468 E. 2007/5334 K. Rectification proceedings were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court