CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 février 2017

.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 } .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 } .s3E3166BC { width:200.1pt; 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 } .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 } .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. 17594/08 SARCAN and CAN against Turkey and 5 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7   February 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Ksenija Turković,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, 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. Before the Court, they are represented by Mr A. Çağer, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     On 3 August 1990 the administration expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants. Following the applicants’ request, the Birecik Civil Court of First Instance awarded additional compensation to them. These judgments were upheld by the Court of Cassation. 5.     The applicants initiated enforcement proceedings. 6.     According to the information in the case files, the administration has still not paid the full amounts. 7.     The details of the applications may be found in the attached table. B.     Relevant domestic law 8.     A description of the domestic law and practice with respect to the Compensation Commission mentioned below may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINTS 9.     Relying on Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complained about the financial loss they had suffered as a result of late payment of the expropriation amounts. In this connection, they further complained that the expropriation proceedings in question had not been concluded within a reasonable time and the domestic court decisions had not been fully enforced. 10.     The applicants also stated under Article 6 of the Convention that the judgment of the Birecik Civil Court of First Instance lacked sufficient reasoning. 11.     The applicants further complained under Article 2 of Protocol   No.   7 to the Convention that there had been no review mechanism. THE LAW 12.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. A.     As regards the application lodged by Mr Müslüm Sarcan (Application no. 17954/08) 13.     The Court notes that one of the applicants in application no.   17954/08, namely Mr Müslüm Sarcan, had died on 7 May 2003 prior to the introduction of the present application with the Court. In this connection, the Court points out that an application cannot be brought in the name of a deceased person, since a deceased person is unable, even through a representative, to lodge an application with the Court (see Macedonia Gavrielidou and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 73802/01, 13   November 2003). 14.     It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. B.     As to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention 15.     Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, the applicants complained about the substantial delay in the enforcement proceedings and financial loss they had suffered as a result. 16.     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. 17.     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 decisions in the cases of Demiroğlu and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013) and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014), the Court declared the applications 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 delay in enforcement proceedings and depreciation of awards in expropriation cases. 18.     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. 19.     However, taking into account the Government’s supplementary 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 cases of Demiroğlu and Others and Yıldız and Yanak , cited above. 20.     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. C.     Remaining Complaints 21.     The applicants alleged that the judgment of the first instance court lacked reasoning and that there had been no review mechanism. In this respect, they relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol   No. 7. 22.     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. It follows that these parts of the application are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with the Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 2 March 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality Case specific details   17594/08 08/04/2008 Salih SARCAN 03/05/1945 Germany German Müslüm Sarcan 01/01/1950 Şanlıurfa Turkish Cuma Sarcan 01/02/1957 Mersin Turkish İslim Can 05/03/1955 Mersin Turkish Plot no. 10 Birecik Civil Court of First Instance 28 September 2000 2000/945E 2000/2923K         34446/08 08/04/2008 Hamide DEMİR 01/01/1937 Şanlıurfa Turkish Ahmet Demir 04/01/1953 Denmark Danish Salih Demir 01/01/1956 Denmark Danish   Zeliha Tarhan 04/12/1958 Şanlıurfa Turkish   Muhammed Demir 26/06/1970 Germany Turkish Emine Demir 02/06/1960 Denmark Turkish Fatma Demir 15/03/1962 Şanlıurfa Turkish Mehmet Emin Demir 05/03/1964 Şanlıurfa Turkish Rahime Demir 08/11/1971 Germany Turkish Abdulkerim Demir 01/04/1976 Şanlıurfa Turkish Plot no. 1687 Birecik Civil Court of First Instance 24 October 2000 2000/1280E 2000/3408K     34447/08 08/04/2008 Hamide DEMIR 01/01/1937 Şanlıurfa Turkish Ahmet Demir 04/01/1953 Denmark Danish Salih Demir 01/01/1956 Denmark Danish Zeliha Tarhan 04/12/1958 Şanlıurfa Turkish Muhammed Demir 26/06/1970 Germany Turkish Emine Demir 02/06/1960 Denmark Turkish Fatma Demir 15/03/1962 Şanlıurfa Turkish Mehmet Emin Demir 05/03/1964 Şanlıurfa Turkish Rahime Demir 08/11/1971 Germany Turkish Abdulkerim Demir 01/04/1976 Şanlıurfa Turkish Plot no. 1698 Birecik Civil Court of First Instance 24 October 2000 2000/1207E 2000/3407K     34454/08 08/04/2008 Fatma ÖZER 18/08/1970 Gaziantep Turkish Ayşe Özer 10/05/1989 Gaziantep Turkish Ahmet Özer 04/01/1965 Sanliurfa Turkish Beşire Özer 15/04/1979 Sanliurfa Turkish Fatma Yılmaz 20/09/1958 Sanliurfa Turkish Gazal Özer 05/01/1974 Sanliurfa Turkish Gülizar Derin 10/08/1976 Gaziantep Turkish Hanım Özer 14/11/1968 Sanliurfa Turkish Hasan Özer 01/03/1987 Gaziantep Turkish İsmail Özer 15/06/1977 Şanliurfa Turkish Kadir Özer 17/03/1977 Şanliurfa Turkish Medine Özer 01/09/1981 Şanliurfa Turkish Mehmet Özer 30/11/1972 Germany Turkish Mehmet Özer 01/01/1928 Şanliurfa Turkish Melihat Özer 06/04/1951 Şanliurfa Turkish Nurten Özer 17/03/1973 Şanliurfa Turkish Ülger Şenlik 06/03/1963 Gaziantep Turkish Rabia Deniz 17/03/1975 Şanliurfa Turkish Reşit Özer 01/10/1969 Şanliurfa Turkish Saliha Özer 10/08/1984 Gaziantep Turkish Zeliha Özer 10/07/1959 Şanliurfa Turkish Zerife Akbaş 11/01/1956 Şanliurfa Turkish Fatma Özer 10/08/1970 Gaziantep Turkish Kevey Özer 01/02/1940 Şanliurfa Turkish Plot no. 282 Birecik Civil Court of First Instance 26 June 2006 2001/164E 2001/470K     34457/08 08/04/2008 Fatma ÖZER 10/08/1970 Gaziantep Turkish Ayşe Özer 10/05/1989 Gaziantep Turkish Ahmet Özer 04/01/1965 Şanliurfa Turkish Beşire Özer 15/04/1979 Şanliurfa Turkish Fatma Yılmaz 20/09/1958 Şanliurfa Turkish Gazal Özer 05/01/1974 Şanliurfa Turkish Gülizar Derin 10/08/1976 Gaziantep Turkish Hanım Özer 14/11/1968 Şanliurfa Turkish Hasan Özer 01/03/1987 Gaziantep Turkish İsmail Özer 15/06/1977 Şanliurfa Turkish Kadir Özer 17/03/1977 Şanliurfa Turkish Medine Özer 01/09/1981 Şanliurfa Turkish Mehmet Özer 01/01/1928 Şanliurfa Turkish Melihat Özer 06/04/1951 Şanliurfa Turkish Nurten Özer 17/03/1973 Şanliurfa Turkish Ülger Şenlik 06/03/1963 Gaziantep Turkish Rabia Deniz 17/03/1975 Şanliurfa Turkish Reşit Özer 01/10/1969 Şanliurfa Turkish Saliha Özer 10/08/1984 Gaziantep Turkish Zeliha Özer 10/07/1959 Şanliurfa Turkish Zerife Akbaş 11/01/1956 Şanliurfa Turkish Bedir Özer 03/02/1950 Gaziantep Turkish Zeynep Özer 20/09/1958 Gaziantep Turkish Cuma Özer 12/02/1954 Gaziantep Turkish Ali Özer 01/01/1969 Şanliurfa Turkish Cemal Özer 01/05/1964 Şanliurfa Turkish Ayten Şahin 01/01/1977 Şanliurfa Turkish Kevey Özer 01/02/1940 Şanliurfa Turkish Bayram Özer 01/01/1976 Şanliurfa Turkish   Plot no. 453 Birecik Civil Court of First Instance 24 October 2000 2001/467E 2001/563K     34471/08 08/04/2008 Fatma ÇOKKALENDER 22/07/1936 Şanliurfa Turkish Emıne Can 12/01/1932 Şanliurfa Turkish Aynizeliha Çokkalender 03/04/1954 Şanliurfa Turkish Kahraman Çokkalender 01/01/1957 Şanliurfa Turkish Müslüm Çokkalender 01/02/1963 Şanliurfa Turkish Yüksel Can 02/02/1966 Şanliurfa Turkish Abdulkadir Çokkalender 01/01/1973 Şanliurfa Turkish Sıdıka Erdıl 05/02/1937 Şanliurfa Turkish Keziban Çokkalender 01/01/1974 Şanliurfa Turkish Mehmet Çokkalender 02/01/1961 Şanliurfa Turkish Ayten Sarıçiçek 03/01/1964 Şanliurfa Turkish Zeliha Çokkalender 12/01/1972 Şanliurfa Turkish Plot no. 1736 Birecik Civil Court of First Instance 24 October 2000 2000/1233E 2000/3402K