CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 mai 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .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 } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s13678100 { width:200.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; 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 } .s3695F815 { 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 27852/06 Meliha et Mustafa Çetin ÖZCAN against Turkey and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17   May 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Nebojša Vučinić, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Milan Blaško, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, 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 cases 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 civil or administrative courts and the proceedings lasted several years. The details of the applications appear in the table below. B.     Relevant domestic law 4.     On 9 January 2013 the Turkish National Assembly enacted Law no.   6384 on the resolution, by means of compensation, of applications lodged with the Court concerning length of judicial proceedings and non ‑ enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions. The competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014. 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 similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Alleged violation of 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 further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged loss of value of the amount of the expropriation compensation due to the effects of inflation and the length of the proceedings. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 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 ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), the Court declared an 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 depreciation of awards in expropriation cases. 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 that type which had already been communicated to the Government. 11.     However, taking into account the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicant’s 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 , cited above. 12.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applications should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 9 June 2016.   Milan Blaško   Nebojša Vučinić Acting 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   27852/06 28/06/2006 Meliha ÖZCAN Istanbul   Mustafa Çetin ÖZCAN Istanbul   Mükrime AVCI Beyoğlu Civil Court 2004/488 E. 2005/90 K. Final judgment delivered on 8   November 2005, notified on 3   January 2006.   32299/07 24/07/2007 Zülfü KAYA 01/01/1944 Diyarbakır   Mesut BEŞTAŞ Diyarbakır Administrative Court 2008/857 E. 2008/456 K. Final judgment delivered on 8   December 2009. The case was pending since 1999.     17553/08 31/03/2008 Hatice İDİ 10/04/1975 Balıkesir   Namık HAVUTÇA Bandırma Civil Court 1993/393E. 2007/271 K. Final judgment delivered on 21   November 2007.