The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 June 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Danutė Jočienė, Peer Lorenzen, András Sajó, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Helen Keller, judges, and Stanley Naismith, 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. 2 ÇAKIR v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before the civil courts or proceedings were brought against them before the civil or criminal courts. The procedures lasted several...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 51274/07 Saime ÇAKIR against Turkey and 100 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 June 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Danutė Jočienė, Peer Lorenzen, András Sajó, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Helen Keller, judges, and Stanley Naismith, 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.
2 ÇAKIR v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION On various dates, the applicants initiated actions before the civil courts or proceedings were brought against them before the civil or criminal courts. The procedures lasted several years. 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. Certain applicants also alleged violations of Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW A. 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. B. 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 or of any criminal charge against him, 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 ((dec.), 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
ÇAKIR v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 3 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. In the present cases the Court sees no reasons to come to a different conclusion. It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic...