The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub Popović, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 March 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Zülal Öksüz, is an Australian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Sydney. She was represented before the Court by Mr E. Bora, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date the applicant bought a house in Samsun. Subsequently, however, the owner of the house denied transferring the ownership to the applicant, and resold it...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 15626/08 Zülal ÖKSÜZ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub Popović, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 March 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Zülal Öksüz, is an Australian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Sydney. She was represented before the Court by Mr E. Bora, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date the applicant bought a house in Samsun. Subsequently, however, the owner of the house denied transferring the ownership to the applicant, and resold it to another person. On 5 November 1993 the applicant initiated civil proceedings before the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction for the determination of the ownership of the aforementioned house. The proceedings are still pending before the domestic court.
2 ÖKSÜZ v. TURKEY DECISION B. Relevant domestic law A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national court were not concluded within a reasonable time. The applicant maintains under the Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that her right to peaceful enjoyment of property was violated by the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of 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 a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey after the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). The Court recalls that in its decision in the case of Turgut and others v. Turkey (no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), it declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as a new domestic remedy had been envisaged. In so doing, the Court in particular considered that this new remedy was, a priori, accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings. The Court further recalls that in its judgment in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (cited above,...