The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 November 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the annex, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants whose names are listed in the appendix, may be summarised as follows. On different dates, the applicants initiated actions before various courts or had civil, administrative or criminal proceedings brought against them. All proceedings lasted several years. 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). 2 KARADEMİR AND OTHERS...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 9977/08 Anıl KARADEMİR and others against Turkey and 165 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 November 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the annex, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants whose names are listed in the appendix, may be summarised as follows. On different dates, the applicants initiated actions before various courts or had civil, administrative or criminal proceedings brought against them. All proceedings lasted several years. 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).
2 KARADEMİR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national courts had not been concluded within a reasonable time. Some of the applicants raised other complaints, particularly under Articles 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1. These complaints are linked to the same proceedings which they complain about the excessive length. THE LAW I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS The Court considers that, pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal backgrounds. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION All the applicants complained that the length of the relevant proceedings before national tribunals were excessive and thus fell short of the requirements of Article 6 § 1, which provides: “1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a (...) hearing within a reasonable time (...) by a tribunal (...)” The Court observes that the applicants considered the length of the proceedings in question to be incompatible with the requirement of “reasonable time” laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In that respect, the Court found in its decision Müdür Turgut and others (cited above, § 56) that the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384, insofar as it is accessible and capable of offering reasonable prospects of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings, constituted a remedy which applicants were required to exhaust for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In the present cases, the Court sees no reason to come to a different conclusion. It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
KARADEMİR AND OTH...