CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sE55E11EC { width:137.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7C0E0FD2 { width:271.85pt; display:inline-block } .s791BEC77 { width:94.1pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 37288/20 İclal AKÇAKOYUN against Türkiye (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 May 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Diana Sârcu, President ,   Davor Derenčinović,   Gediminas Sagatys , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30   July 2020, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr E. Gündüz, a lawyer practising in Kayseri. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings was communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Court, having examined all the materials submitted to it and having regard to the criteria established in its case-law on the subject (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII), considers that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings, is inadmissible on the ground that the length of the proceedings of approximately five years was not excessive or unreasonable since the case was considered by three judicial instances during this period (see, for example, Loizou v. Turkey (dec.), no.   50646/15, 3 October 2017). Having regard to all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, to the overall duration of the proceedings, the Court finds that their length did not in itself exceed what may be considered “reasonable”. In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with 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 6 June 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Sârcu   Acting Deputy Registrar   President         APPENDIX   Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Award by the Constitutional Court (in euros) File number Final decision by the Constitutional Court Date 37288/20 30/07/2020 İclal AKÇAKOYUN 1958 Ertan Gündüz Kayseri 14/12/2015   10/11/2020   4 years, 10 months and 28 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 0   2019/42141   12/05/2020