CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 septembre 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 } .s82B56815 { width:201.76pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; 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 } .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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 14057/04 ASLAN and others against Turkey and 9 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15   September 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Helen Keller,   Egidijus Kūris, 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.     On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts or criminal proceedings were initiated against them. The proceedings lasted for several years. The details of the applications appear in the table below. B.     Relevant domestic law 3.     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). COMPLAINTS 4.     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. 5.     The applicants raised other complaints, particularly under Article   6 about the fairness of the proceedings and under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. 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. A.     Alleged violation of the Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 prior to the entry into force of the new remedy. 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). B.     Other complaints 12.     The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. However, in light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols. It follows that the respective 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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 8 October 2015.   Abel Campos   Paul Lemmens   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application No. Lodged on Applicants’ Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Date and Reference Numbers of the Judgments Given by the Domestic Courts   14057/04 30/03/2004 M. Fadıl ASLAN Diyarbakır   Abdulmecit KURT Diyarbakır   Medeni KARTAL Diyarbakır   Fahri BARAN 1944 Diyarbakır Refik Timuçin BEKTAŞ Silvan Civil Court of First Instance (No. 1995/214 E. 2000/162 K.) Final decision: Rectification proceedings before the Court of Cassation ended on 20 October 2003.   29828/05 03/08/2005 GÜMÜŞDERE İNŞAAT TİC. VE SAN. A.Ş.   Müslim YILMAZ Ankara Commercial Court Dated 18 February 2008, (No.   2002/858 E. 2008/29 K.) Appeal proceedings: Court of Cassation decision dated 8 June 2009 (No. 2008/4673E, 2009/3393K). Rectification proceedings: Court of Cassation decision dated 9   October 2009 (No. 2009/5667 E, 2009/5201 K).   2726/06 20/12/2005 GÜMÜŞDERE İNŞAAT TİC. VE SAN. A.Ş.   Müslim YILMAZ First set of proceedings: Ankara Administrative Court, dated 17 February 2010 (No. 2010/200E, 2010/118K) Second set of proceedings: Eskişehir Administrative Court (No. 2004/404 E. 2005/597 K.) Final decision: Supreme Administrative Court (No.   2007/786E, 2009/5321K), dated 14 May 2009)   22900/06 17/05/2006 Ali ALEVCİ 1942 Aydın Hüseyin ALEVCİ Aydın Civil Court of First Instance (No. 1998/896 E. 2001/1228K). Final decision: Court of Cassation (No. 2005/9449E, 2005/9993K), dated 15 November 2005. Notification: 7 December 2005   41891/06 5/10/2006 Elmas ÖZDEMİR 1972 Istanbul Metin FİLORİNALI Istanbul Assize Court (No.   1998/240 E, 2006/179K) On 20 September 2006 the proceedings were terminated due to expiry of statutory time-limit.   22421/07 15/05/2007 Naile Nihal KORONCU 1954 Istanbul     Kadıköy Commercial Court, dated 9 May 2005 (No. 2001/241 E. 2009/301K.) Final decision: Court of Cassation (No. 2006/14568 E, 2007/2896K), dated 15 February 2007.   25533/08 12/05/2008 Mustafa BAYKAL 1946 Hakkari   Sabahattin BAYKAL 1949 Hakkari Zeki YÜKSEL Yüksekova Civil Court of First Instance (No. 2002/34 E. 2007/197 K.) Final decision: Court of Cassation (2007/5697 E, 2007/6205K) 8 November 2007.   25535/08 12/05/2008 Lütfü BULDAN 1964 Hakkari Zeki YÜKSEL Yüksekova Civil Court of First Instance (No.2 002/112E. 2007/198 K.) dated 6 June 2007 Final decision: Court of Cassation (2007/5700 E, 2007/6204K) 8 November 2007.   27423/08 26/05/2008 Seyyan Sönmez HIZAL 1970 Antalya   Hüseyin Cihat AÇIKALIN Hatay Civil Court of First Instance (No. 2002/154 E. 2007/155 K.) Final decision: Court of Cassation (no. 2007/15820 E 2008/5009K) 9   April 2008.   30773/08 12/06/2008 ALGÖR UNLU MAMULLERİ   Ahmet ALTUN Söke Civil Court of First Instance (No. 2001/468 E. 2007/76 K.) dated 27 February 2007. Final decision: Court of Cassation (No. 2007/14561K) dated 3   December 2007, notified on 7 January 2008