CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 mars 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 } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .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 } .sD79BB263 { width:196.1pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s2D7AB53A { width:10.61pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 25854/07 Bayram SEVINÇ against Turkey and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14   March 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Ksenija Turković, President,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants, whose details are set out in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. 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.     The applicants’ work contracts were terminated either due to retirement or expiration of the contractual period. The applicants subsequently brought proceedings before the domestic courts, claiming their outstanding salaries, severance pay and/or other pecuniary rights. 4.     The domestic courts found in line with the applicants’ claims and ordered the former employers to pay the outstanding debts. At the time when the applications were introduced, the applicants had still not been paid the due amounts determined by the domestic courts. 5.     The details regarding the applications appear in the attached table. B.     Relevant domestic law 6.     A description of the domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013 and Demiroğlu and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013. COMPLAINTS 7.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No.1 to the Convention that despite the judgments given in their favor, the authorities had not paid the due amounts. THE LAW 8.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 9.     The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-execution of domestic court judgments. 10.     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. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 11.     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 Demiroğlu and others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 56125/10, 4   June 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 non-execution of judgments. 12.     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. 13.     Taking into account the Government’s 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, cited above, §§ 24-36, Turgut and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26   March 2013). 14.     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 6 April 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ksenija Turković Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No Application No. Applicant’s Date of birth Place of Residence Lodged on   Represented by Date and no. of the final domestic court decision   Amount of payment that was ordered in favour of the applicant   25854/07   Bayram SEVİNÇ 01/01/1959 Ankara   30/05/2007   Oral ÖZBAŞ 10/4/2006   Court of Cassation, E 2005/29728 K 2006/8903 5,251.26 Turkish liras (TRY) plus interest   30954/09   Abdurrahman DEMİROĞLU 01/01/1972 Elazığ   28/04/2009   Hacı Muhammed TAŞ 18/9/2006   Court of Cassation, E 2006/18798 K 2006/24020 5,704.21 (TRY) plus interest   61911/09   Mustafa ÇAĞIRAN 26/01/1954 Şanlıurfa   10/11/2009   Fatma Zehra EJDER 20/10/2008   Bozova Labour Court, E 2006/190 K 2008/346   21,258.65 (TRY) plus interest