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, 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 initiated actions before the various civil courts or civil proceedings were brought against them before the civil courts. While certain procedures lasted several years, some proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts. B. Relevant domestic law A description...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 10594/11 Salih TÜRKAN against Turkey and 14 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, 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 initiated actions before the various civil courts or civil proceedings were brought against them before the civil courts. While certain procedures lasted several years, 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 TÜRKAN 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 of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing as domestic judicial authorities had erred in assessment of the evidence and establishment of the facts. Certain applicants also alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the amounts awarded to them had lost their value due to the length of the proceedings. 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 THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS The applicant 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 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 th...