The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, listed in the Appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. Additionally, 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 initiated actions before various civil courts or civil proceedings were brought against them before the civil courts. Certain procedures lasted several years, however some proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts. B. Relevant domestic law A...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 7463/09 Mustafa Şevket TARI and others against Turkey and 12 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, listed in the Appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. Additionally, 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 initiated actions before various civil courts or civil proceedings were brought against them before the civil courts. Certain procedures lasted several years, however some proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts. 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 TARI AND OTHERS 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 complained under Article 6 § 1 and 17 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings. Certain applicants also alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 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 their common legal background. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS 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 (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 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...