CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 septembre 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 } .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 } .s93654821 { width:16.99pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8E1B9F9 { width:203.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s98EC6975 { page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 26256/06 Mahmure SÖNMEZER against Turkey and 5 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Valeriu Griţco, President,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, 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 various civil courts or criminal proceedings were brought against them. The details of the applications appear in the table below. B.     Relevant domestic law 4.     A description of the domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu v. Turkey (dec.), no.   56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no.   44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINTS   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. 6.     The applicants submitted other complaints under Articles 6, 8, 13, 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW 7.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. A.     Alleged violation of the Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 8.     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. 9.     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 applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 10.     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 Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014), 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. 11.     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. 12.     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 ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26   March 2013). 13.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that this part of the applications should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.     Other alleged violations of the Convention 14.     The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. However, in the light of the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. 15.     It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with the Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares inadmissible the applications.   Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Valeriu Griţco 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   26256/06 19/06/2006 Mahmure SÖNMEZER 16/07/1950 İzmir   Özlem ENGİN TERKEŞ İzmir Civil Court 2005/450 E. 2005/141 K.   The case finalised on 23   December 2005. It was pending since 8   June 2001.   31839/06 29/07/2004 Cengiz KUMANLI 03/08/1959 Edirne   Engül ÇITAK Üsküdar Assize Court 2004/393 E. 2009/390 K.   The applicant was acquitted from the all charges on 15   December 2009.   The criminal case was pending since 10   October 1980.   49636/06 01/12/2006 Celal YIKILMAZ 25/10/1950 Ankara Niyazi YIKILMAZ 24/09/1953 Ankara   Bilal YIKILMAZ 30/10/1960 Ankara   Makbule ATSAY 26/04/1965 Ankara     Mehmet Ali ALAN Ankara Civil Court 2005/2 E. 2005/131 K.   The case finalised on 22   May 2006.   The case was pending since 16   November 2000.   44079/07 27/09/2007 Ediliye AKTÜRK 01/01/1961 Ankara     Hasan USLU 01/01/1966 Ankara     Halil İbrahim ÖZDEMİR Ankara Administrative Court 2001/1394 E. 2002/4451 K.   The case finalised on 25   February 2007.   The case was pending since 2001.   46757/07 04/10/2007 KARADENİZ ÖRME SAN. VE DIŞ TİC. A.Ş. KARADENIZ ÖRME SAN. VE DIŞ TİC. A.Ş. Istanbul   Adnan KORKMAZ Istanbul Commercial Court 2005/2 E. 2005/595 K.   The case finalised on 23   October 2007. The case was pending since 2001.   55043/07 11/12/2007 Mehmet Nedim SÖZEN 08/05/1957 Antalya     Kumluca Cadastral Court 2001/1 E. 2005/20 K.   The case finalised on 12   June 2007. The case was pending since 1991.