MURAT HAÇİKOĞLU/TÜRKİYE DAVASI

FORMER SECOND SECTION DECISION This version was rectified on16 June 2015 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. Application no. 21786/04 Murat HAÇİKOĞLU against Turkey and 830 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 April 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Paul Lemmens, Egidijus Kūris, Robert Spano, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, listed in the appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3. On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts or civil proceedings were brought against them before the civil courts. Certain procedures lasted several years, and some are still pending before the domestic courts.

2 HAÇİKOĞLU v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS – DECISION B. Relevant domestic law A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). 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 alleged that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. All the applicants raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been 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...” The Court observes that the applicants asserted that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of the “reasonable time” requirement in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court found in Müdür Turgut and Others (§§ 58 and 60, (dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013) that the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384, insofar as it is a priori 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. Accordingly, the applicants should avail themselves of the new remedy offered by Law no. 6384. It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

HAÇİKOĞLU v...