The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 February 2017 as a Committee composed of: Valeriu Griţco, President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts. Certain procedures lasted several years, and one case is still pending before the domestic courts. The details of the applications appear in the attached table. 2 SÜZER v. TURKEY AND OTHER...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 5426/09 Reşit SÜZER against Turkey and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 February 2017 as a Committee composed of: Valeriu Griţco, President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before various civil courts. Certain procedures lasted several years, and one case is still pending before the domestic courts. The details of the applications appear in the attached table.
2 SÜZER v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION B. Relevant domestic law 4. A description of the domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013). COMPLAINTS 5. 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. 6. In application 5426/09, the applicant complained that he had suffered financial loss as a result of the length of the proceedings. 7. In application no. 33302/09, the applicant maintained that the rectification and appeal requests examined by the same judges of the Court of Cassation had constituted a breach of Article 6 of the Convention. THE LAW 8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 9. 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. 10. The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. They maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission: this ground had also been recognised by the Court in its decision in the case of (see Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013). 11. The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of (see Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others, cited above, the Court declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domes...