The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Antonella Mularoni, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Rıza Türmen, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 May 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Gülcan Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Uşak. She was represented before the Court by Mr Atak, a lawyer practising in Uşak. The Turkish Government (“the...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 19686/03 by Gülcan YILMAZ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Antonella Mularoni, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Rıza Türmen, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 May 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Gülcan Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Uşak. She was represented before the Court by Mr Atak, a lawyer practising in Uşak. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
2 GÜLCAN YILMAZ v. TURKEY DECISION The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was the owner of a building in Uşak. On an unspecified date, she agreed to sell this building to B.Ç. and in exchange she received a certain amount of cash and two bonds dated 23 November 1997 and 23 December 1997 respectively. She accordingly transferred the title deed to B.Ç.’s name. Shortly after this transaction, B.Ç. sold the building to a certain A.G. and the title was registered in the latter’s name. On 11 August 1997 the applicant’s lawyer filed an action before the Uşak Civil Court of General Jurisdiction against B.Ç. and A.G., arguing that B.Ç. had deceived the applicant during the transaction, and thus the transfer of the title deed should be annulled and the title re-registered in her name. In this respect, she claimed that B.Ç. had committed fraud during the purchase of the land. In the meantime, the applicant also initiated criminal proceedings against B.Ç. in the Uşak Criminal Court, accusing him of fraud (case no. 1997/691). On 18 December 1997 the Uşak Civil Court of General Jurisdiction held its first hearing and took statements from several witnesses. The court also took note of the fact that there were three separate criminal proceedings pending against B.Ç. on charges of fraud (namely case no. 1997/691 initiated by the applicant before the Uşak Criminal Court; case no. 1997/630 initiated by a certain D.D. before the Uşak Criminal Court and case no. 1997/160 before the Uşak Assize Court). It therefore decided to request copies of these case files which were found to be relevant to the instant case. Thereafter, the civil court awaited the outcome of these criminal proceedings, each time adjourning the hearings to a later date and without taking any...