Decision of Court (Second Section Committee), May 19, 2015 (case TOKYÜREK AND OKUMUŞ v. TURKEY)

• Judge: UYSAL P.
• Resolution Date: May 19, 2015
• Issuing Organization: Court (Second Section Committee)

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36449/06TOKYÜREK AND OKUMUŞagainst Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Sec ond Section), sitting on 19 May 2015 as a Committee composed of:

             Nebojša Vučinić, President,              Paul Lemmens,              Egidijus Kūris, judges,and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 August 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented by Ms P. Uysal, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

   1. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

3. On 24 April 1987 Mr Tokyürek, the husband of the first applicant and the father of the remaining applicants, had brought a compensation case (1987/149 E) before the Silivri Civil Court against third parties.

4. On 26 August 1999 Mr Tokyürek died and the civil case was followed by his heirs, namely, the applicants.

5. According to the latest information in the case file, the case was still pending before the civil court on 24 May 2010.

   2. Relevant domestic law and practice

6. A description of the domestic law and practice may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013.

   COMPLAINT

7. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the excessive length of the proceedings.

   THE LAW

8. 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.

9. 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 applicants 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 Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).

10. 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 Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others, cited above, the...