The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub Popović, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 June 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Adem Çalık, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Samsun. He was represented before the Court by Mr F. Şenocak, a lawyer practising in Samsun. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date, the applicant signed a contract with a cooperative called Öz-Tim Toplu Konut Yapı Kooperatifi (“the cooperative”) for a dwelling belonging to...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 30690/08 Adem ÇALIK against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub Popović, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 June 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Adem Çalık, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Samsun. He was represented before the Court by Mr F. Şenocak, a lawyer practising in Samsun. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date, the applicant signed a contract with a cooperative called Öz-Tim Toplu Konut Yapı Kooperatifi (“the cooperative”) for a dwelling belonging to the latter. Between 1995 and 1996, having paid a sum of money, he expected to receive a flat from the cooperative in a newly built block.
2 ÇALIK v. TURKEY DECISION On 29 January 1999 the applicant initiated civil proceedings before the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction against the cooperative. The procedure lasted about eight years and four months before the national court. B. Relevant domestic law A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national court were not concluded within a reasonable time. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 13 of the Convention and that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...” The Court observes that a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey after the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). The Court recalls that in its decision in the case of Turgut and others v. Turkey (no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), it declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as a new domestic remedy had been envisaged. In so doing, the Court in particular considered that this new remedy was, a priori, accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings. The Court further recalls that in its judgment in the case of Ümm...