CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 août 2020

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCF3DE171 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2A036C4D { width:140.21pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9C6A147F { width:184.21pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5B8CBD11 { width:86.42%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF815CF3A { width:8.34%; 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 } .sE5627FA5 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7C0B0EBB { width:22.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7E0D939 { width:8.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B7A7BB6 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF53FD7AF { width:22.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 30965/12 Levent ŞENGEL and Others against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25   August 2020 as a Chamber composed of:   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Valeriu Griţco,   Egidijus Kūris,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Darian Pavli,   Saadet Yüksel, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 April 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The second applicant, Göksel Şengel, is the son of the first and third applicants. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 10 May 2004 the second applicant, who was six years old at the time, was hit by a car while he was walking on the sidewalk. According to a medical record, his leg had been broken during the accident. Criminal proceedings 4.     Shortly after the incident, a criminal investigation was initiated against the driver of the car, M.D., who had hit the second applicant. He was charged with causing bodily harm through negligence. The first applicant, Mr Levent Şengel, joined the proceedings as a civil party. 5.     On 6 March 2007 the Gebze Criminal Court of First Instance convicted M.D. as charged, and sentenced him to a fine. 6.     On 14 December 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, as the prosecution of the offence in question had become time-barred. The applicants claimed that they learned about the decision of the Court of Cassation on 12 October 2011 during the course of the compensation proceedings (see below). Civil proceedings 7.     On 2 July 2004 the first and third applicants brought compensation proceedings against the company which owned the car involved in the accident and its insurance company before the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance. The first and second applicants requested 10,000 Turkish liras (TRY) and TRY 100 respectively, in respect of pecuniary damage. The applicants also requested a total of TRY 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 8.     On 8 November 2013 the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance delivered its decision and held that the driver had been partially at fault for the injuries sustained by the second applicant and that he had not caused the accident intentionally. Considering that the second applicant had fully recovered after the accident, the court granted the first and second applicants’ respective requests in respect of pecuniary damage, together with their request for interest. It also awarded the applicants a total of TRY   15,000 (approximately 5,000 euros (EUR)) as non-pecuniary damage, plus interest. 9.     None of the parties appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, which thus became final on 6 March 2014. COMPLAINTS 10.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the criminal proceedings. 11.     They further complained under Articles 2, 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the person who had hit the second applicant had not been subjected to any punishment as the criminal proceedings had been discontinued for having become time-barred. THE LAW Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 12.     The Court notes at the outset that the criminal proceedings in the instant case ended on 14 December 2010 with the decision of the Court of Cassation and the application was lodged on 11 April 2012. Having said that, it is not necessary to examine whether the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit since this part of the application is in any event inadmissible for the reasons indicated below. 13.     To the extent that the applicants invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to complain of an infringement of their right to a fair trial on account of the length of the criminal proceedings at issue, the Court reiterates that the Convention does not confer any right, as such, to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence (see Perez v.   France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004 ‑ I). Therefore, a victim of an offence may only invoke his or her fair trial rights in connection with the criminal proceedings against the offender if he or she has joined those proceedings as a civil party to obtain damages or to otherwise protect his or her civil rights (see, for instance, Hafikli v. Turkey (dec.), no.   13394/12, 30   August 2016). The Court notes that while the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the material time allowed civil parties to request compensation during criminal proceedings (see Beyazgül v.   Turkey , no.   27849/03, §§ 36 and 39, 22 September 2009), there is no information in the case file to suggest that Mr Levent Şengel, the only applicant who had joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party, had made such a request before the conclusion of these proceedings. 14.     In these circumstances, and relying on its settled case-law on this matter, the Court concludes that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see Hafikli , cited above). The remaining complaints 15.     The applicants argued that the failure of the domestic judicial authorities to convict the driver on account of the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings for having become time ‑ barred amounted to a violation of Articles 2, 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 16.     The Court observers that the domestic judicial   authorities have established that the   accident was caused as a result of negligence of the driver, who had hit the six-year-old applicant while he was walking on the sidewalk, and that it was not intentional. The Court has no reason to depart from that finding, which the applicants have not challenged. 17.     The Court considers, having regard to the extent of the second applicant’s injuries which do not appear to have threatened his life, and the circumstances leading to those injuries, that this part of the applicants’ complaint is manifestly ill-founded. The Court recalls that the Convention did not necessarily require a criminal-law remedy on the facts and could be satisfied if the applicants had at their disposal an effective civil-law remedy (see, mutatis mutandis , Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria , no. 23302/03, §   73, 24   May 2011; Ciechońska v. Poland , no. 19776/04, § 66, 14 June 2011; Gençarslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62609/12, 14 March 2017; and Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania ([GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 161 ‑ 163, 25   June 2019), 18.     The Court further observes that the applicants made use of a civil remedy before the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance, which established the facts and the responsibility of the parties for the accident and provided the applicants with redress. The Court notes that the applicants have not challenged the effectiveness of those civil proceedings or the amount awarded to them which is also apparent from the fact that they did not appeal against the judgment of the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance. 19.     Having regard to the foregoing, and to its decisions in similar cases (see, for instance, Sansal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28732/09, §§   46 ‑ 51, 2   September 2014, and Kaya and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no.   67385/09, §§   28 ‑ 31, 24 May 2016), the Court considers that the applicants’ complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 17 September 2020.   Stanley Naismith   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro   Registrar   President   Appendix     No. Applicant’s Name Birth date Nationality Place of residence 1 Levent ŞENGEL 27/06/1974 Turkish Kocaeli 2 Göksel ŞENGEL 03/02/1998 Turkish Kocaeli 3 Sabriye ŞENGEL 25/07/1978 Turkish Kocaeli