The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 December 2013 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub Popović, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, indicated in the Appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the names of the applicants as well as the case and decision numbers of the impugned proceedings appear in the Appendix. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On various dates, the applicants brought actions before various civil courts and/or criminal proceedings were instituted against them in various domestic courts. While certain procedures lasted several years, some proceedings are still pending. B. Relevant domestic law A description of...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 21678/09 Mustafa Kemal DERİNKÖK against Turkey and 34 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 December 2013 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub Popović, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, indicated in the Appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the names of the applicants as well as the case and decision numbers of the impugned proceedings appear in the Appendix. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On various dates, the applicants brought actions before various civil courts and/or criminal proceedings were instituted against them in various domestic courts. While certain procedures lasted several years, some proceedings are still pending. 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).
2 DERİNKÖK v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 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. Certain applicants alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. THE LAW I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given the similarity of the facts and of the legal issues raised. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION The applicants complained that the length of proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of 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 or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...” The Court found in Müdür Turgut and Others (cited above, §§ 58 and 60) that the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384 insofar as it is, a priori, accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings is a remedy which applicants should make use of. 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. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Certain applicants also complain that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. They rely in this regard Article 13 of the Convention, which provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms ...