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!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF VEDAT ARSLAN v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 37927/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 January
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vedat Arslan v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Danutė Jočienė,
President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Guido Raimondi,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 14 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 37927/04) against the
Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article
34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a
Turkish national, Mr Vedat Arslan (“the applicant”), on 7
August 2004. The Turkish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent.
- On
24 March 2009 the Court
declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaints concerning the length of the compensation
proceedings. In accordance with Protocol no. 14, the
application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Ankara.
- On
17 June 2003 the applicant brought compensation proceedings against
the Governor of Kayseri, along with another person, before the First
Chamber of the Kayseri Civil Court (case no. 2003/570).
- On
22 April 2005 the Governor of Kayseri brought counter proceedings
for compensation before the Fourth Chamber of the Kayseri Civil Court
(2005/168). On 11 September 2006 the cases were joined.
- On
5 June 2008 the court of first instance rejected both claims.
- On
11 May 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Kayseri
Civil Court and on 8 October 2009 it rejected the applicant's
rectification request.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in question
had been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
- The
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration lasted
six years, three months and twenty-three days before two levels of
jurisdiction, and the case was pending before the first-instance
court for approximately five years of this total period.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
- As
for the merits, the Government maintained that it had essentially
been the conduct of the applicant which had delayed the determination
of his claim. They pointed out that the applicant had failed to pay
the expenses required for the collection of evidence for the first
eight months of the proceedings, which evidence was essential for the
completion of the case file. Moreover, he had not attended some
hearings and had requested several additional time-limits to submit
certain statements and documents.
- The
applicant maintained his allegations.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in applications raising issues similar to the one in the
present case (see Hayrettin Kartal v. Turkey, no. 4520/02, §
21, 20 October 2005 and Güngil v. Turkey, no. 28388/03, §
26, 10 March 2009). Having examined all the material submitted to it,
the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact
or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion
in the present case. The Court particularly notes that, whilst the
delay in the payment of the various court expenses might have
somewhat prolonged the proceedings, the applicant's conduct alone
could not justify their entire length. Having regard to its case-law
on the subject, the Court therefore considers that the length of the
proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant claimed 130,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage,
mainly for his and his daughter's living and other expenses.
- The
Government contested these claims as being unsubstantiated.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
- The
applicant did not submit any claims for non-pecuniary damage or cost
and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call
to award him any sum under these heads.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the remainder of the application
admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Dismisses the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Danutė
Jočienė
Deputy
Registrar President
