The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Valeriu Griţco, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants, whose details are set out in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr. Sedat Çınar, a lawyer practicing in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. Upon the applicants’ request, the Court decided that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine of the...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 24000/07 Hüseyin BULUT and others against Turkey and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Valeriu Griţco, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants, whose details are set out in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr. Sedat Çınar, a lawyer practicing in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. Upon the applicants’ request, the Court decided that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine of the Rules of Court). A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
2 BULUT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 3. On 5 May 1999 the applicants were laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur Municipality (“the Municipality”). Subsequently, the applicants brought separate actions before the Diyarbakır Labour Court against the Municipality, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities, severance pay and other pecuniary rights. The court granted the applicants’ requests and in the absence of appeal, the judgments became final. At the date of introduction of the applications, the judgment debts were still outstanding. Subsequently, friendly settlement agreements were reached between the Municipality and some of the applicants, namely Mr Hüseyin Kumral, Mr Kadri Ekici, Mr Mahfuz Ok and Mr Orhan Görken and the relevant payments were made to these applicants. No friendly settlement agreement was signed between Mr Hüseyin Bulut and the Municipality, and according to the information in the case file, this debt is still not paid. 4. The details of the applications appear in the attached table. B. Relevant domestic law 1. Regarding the applicants “victim status” for claims raised under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 5. A full description of domestic law and notion of “victim” in domestic settlements may be found in Çiçek and Öztemel and Others v. Turkey (nos. 74069/01, 74703/01, 76380/01, 16809/02, 25710/02, 25714/02 and 30383/02, §§ 18-39, 3 May 2007). 2. Regarding the Competency of the Compensation Commission 6. A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). COMPLAINTS 7. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the failure of the national authorities to comply with the Diyarbakır La...