The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 February 2014 as a Committee composed of: András Sajó, President, Helen Keller, Egidijus Kūris, judges, and, Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 19 February 2009, Having regard to the decision of 3 November 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. A list of the applicants together with the details of proceedings involved is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Mr Ç. K. Öner and Ms F. Esenyel, lawyers practising in Istanbul. 2. The Turkish Government were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 13 March 1996 the authorisation for a stockbroking firm (Yener Kaya Menkul Değerler A.Ş) to operate in the stock exchange...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 18904/09 Mahmut BACAK against Turkey and 44 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 February 2014 as a Committee composed of: András Sajó, President, Helen Keller, Egidijus Kūris, judges, and, Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 19 February 2009, Having regard to the decision of 3 November 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. A list of the applicants together with the details of proceedings involved is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Mr Ç. K. Öner and Ms F. Esenyel, lawyers practising in Istanbul. 2. The Turkish Government were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 13 March 1996 the authorisation for a stockbroking firm (Yener Kaya Menkul Değerler A.Ş) to operate in the stock exchange was annulled. The firm was managing the equity securities of the applicants at the relevant time.
2 BACAK v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS - DECISION 5. On 15 May 1998 the firm was declared bankrupt. Following insolvency proceedings, the exact amounts of its debts to creditors were determined in 2005. 6. On different dates in January 2005, the applicants had recourse to the Capital Markets Board (the Board), seeking compensation for some of their losses in accordance with Law no. 4487. 7. The proceedings ended on various dates between 1 May 2006 and 28 November 2008. B. Relevant domestic law and practice 8. The Court refers to the law and practice which is outlined in the case of Müdür Turgut and others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013. COMPLAINT 9. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the administrative proceedings had not been concluded within a reasonable time. THE LAW 10. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings was incompatible with 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...” 11. The Government requested the Court to declare this application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in the light of Law no. 6384 which provides for a remedy capable of redressing the Convention grievances of persons who complained about the length of proceedings. 12. The applicants contested the Government’s argument. 13. 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 Müdür Turgut and others v. Turkey (no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013)...