The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3 September 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Atilla Nalbant, 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 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...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 44066/07 Şükriye CANGİR and others against Turkey and 7 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3 September 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Atilla Nalbant, 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 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 CANGİR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY 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 violations of Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. Certain applicants also complained under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention, the amounts awarded to them 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 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 ..., 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 a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings. 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...