Adile BAYDILLI and Others v Turkey - 42942/06 [2011] ECHR 1763 (27 September 2011)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:

David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Giorgio Malinverni,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 January 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,

The applicants are Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Their names and dates of birth are indicated in the Appendix. They were represented before the Court by Mr İ. Karakeçili, a lawyer practising in Şanlıurfa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

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

On 25 April 1986 the applicants brought proceedings against several third persons, requesting the annulment of the latter’s title deed to certain plots of land.

On 5 May 1992 the Şanlıurfa Civil Court of General Jurisdiction partially accepted the case and held that certain of the impugned plots be registered on the applicants.

On 4 December 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.

On 5 July 2005 the Şanlıurfa Civil Court dismissed the applicants’ case as it found that there had been a voluntary distribution of the plots among the parties.

On 6 December 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The higher court rejected the applicants’ request for rectification on 20 March 2006.

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings before the Şanlıurfa Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.

Relying upon Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants maintained that they were deprived of their property in that the domestic court erred in its judgment.

The applicants mainly complained about the length of civil proceedings concerning a property dispute. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal... ”

By letter dated 28 January 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

“Je déclare que le Gouvernement de la République de Turquie offre de verser au requérants, Mme Adile Baydıllı, M. İrfan Karakeçili, M. Mahmut Baydıllı, M. Mustafa Badılı, M. Ahmet Baydıllı, Mme Hatice Karakeçili, Mme Emine Baydıllı, Mme Ayşe Baydıllı, Mme Rahime Baydıllı, M. Rifat Baydıllı, M. Abdulkadir Baydıllı, M. Salih Baydıllı et Mme Müzeyyen Tacir, conjointement, la somme de 11 000 (onze mille) euros, couvrant tout préjudice matériel et moral ainsi que 500 (cinq cents) euros, couvrant l’ensemble des frais et dépens, plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre d’impôt par les requérants, sommes qu’il considère comme appropriées à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour.

Cette somme sera convertie en livres turques au taux applicable à la date du paiement, et exemptes de toute taxe éventuellement applicable. Elle sera payée dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de la Cour rendue conformément à l’article 37 § 1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. A défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s’engage à verser, à compter de l’expiration de celui-ci et jusqu’au règlement effectif de la somme en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage. Ce versement vaudra règlement définitif de l’affaire.

Le Gouvernement considère que la procédure interne engagée par la partie requérante a connu une durée excessive au sens de la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour (Daneshpayeh c. Turquie, n^o21086/04, 16 juillet 2009). Il invite respectueusement la Cour à dire qu’il ne se justifie plus de poursuivre l’examen de la requête et à la rayer du rôle conformément à l’article 37 de la Convention.”

In a letter of 10 June 2011 the applicants expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.

The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003 VI; also WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03; Stark and Others v. Finland (striking out), no. 39559/02, § 23, 9 October 2007; Silva Marrafa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 56936/08, 25 May 2010; Karal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44655/09, 29 March 2011; and Barış İnan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 20315/10, 24 May 2011).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; and Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 28-29, 16 July 2009).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it concerns the complaint about the length of proceedings.

The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings and maintained that they were deprived of their property as a result of that outcome.

The Court finds that the complaint directly concerns the domestic court’s evaluation of evidence and its interpretation of domestic law. Therefore it should be evaluated solely from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides 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 reiterates that it is not a court of fourth instance and it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001 II). It also reiterates that it is not its task to review the assessment of evidence by a national court, unless it is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000).

Accordingly, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of any violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, in so far as it concerns the complaint about the length of proceedings;

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Adile BAYDILLI and Others v Turkey - 42942/06 [2011] ECHR 1763 (27 September 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1763.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1763