This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. KARYAĞDI v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Karyağdı v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, András Baka, Riza Türmen, Mindia Ugrekhelidze, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 December 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 22956/04) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Cem Karyağdı (“the...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF KARYAĞDI v. TURKEY (Application no. 22956/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 January 2008 FINAL 08/04/2008 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
KARYAĞDI v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Karyağdı v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, András Baka, Riza Türmen, Mindia Ugrekhelidze, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 December 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 22956/04) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Cem Karyağdı (“the applicant”), on 28 May 2004. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr E Çiçek, a lawyer practising in Bursa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. 3. On 11 January 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4. The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Bursa. At the time of the events he was employed by S.İ and M.U. 5. In 1997 the applicant was injured in an occupational accident and lost the third and fourth fingers of his left hand. 6. On 22 December 1997 the applicant filed an action for compensation before the Bursa Civil Court of First Instance against S.İ., M.U and two other individuals who were allegedly responsible for the accident.
2 KARYAĞDI v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 7. On 16 June 2000, an expert report assessing the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant was submitted to the court. 8. On 12 September 2000 the applicant lodged another case with the same court, claiming further damages. These two procedures were later joined. 9. On 16 January 2002 the Bursa Civil Court of First Instance decided that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the applicant's case. 10. On 20 February 2002 the defendants appealed against this decision. 11. On 23 May 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision. 12. On 31 July 2002 the case was resumed before the Bursa Labour Court. 13. The first hearing was held on 21 November 2002. The court requested a report regarding the applicant's disability. 14. On 30 June and 20 October 2003, the court postponed the scheduled hearings as the report requested on 21 November 2002 had not yet been submitted. 1...