[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF
AKKAYA v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 34395/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2
March 2010
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Akkaya v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András
Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş, judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 February 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 34395/04) 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 Cemil
Akkaya (“the applicant”), on 14 June 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr G.C. Ekşioğlu, a lawyer
practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent.
- On
28 November 2008 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ankara.
- On
22 October 1997 the applicant, who worked in a private company at the
material time, had an accident during working hours that led to his
partial disability.
- On
19 June 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Ankara Labour
Court against his employer, requesting compensation for the pecuniary
damage he had suffered as a result of the accident.
- On
30 April 2003 the applicant lodged another action with the same court
against his employer, this time requesting compensation for
non pecuniary damage.
- On 27
May 2003 the court joined two cases.
- During
the proceedings the first-instance court postponed the hearings
awaiting information and documents from a number of State
authorities, such as the public prosecutor's office and the Social
Security Institution, as well as the reports of experts appointed by
the court.
- On
21 June 2004 the Ankara Labour Court partially accepted the
applicant's claims and awarded him compensation for non-pecuniary
damage, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from the date of
the incident.
- On
4 November 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the
first instance court.
- In
his submissions of 4 August 2008 and 29 May 2009, the applicant
informed the Court that he had filed a case with the Ankara Labour
Court against the company, requesting additional compensation (munzam
zarar) for the damage he had sustained as a result
of the delay in payment. This case was dismissed on 21 April 2009.
- In
his letter of 7 August 2009 to the Court, the applicant complained
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the courts'
refusal to grant him additional compensation violated his right to
property.
- The
applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention was separated from the present application and was
registered under application no. 53791/09.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 19 June 1998 when the
applicant lodged the action with the Ankara Labour Court and ended on
4 November 2004 when the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of
the first instance court. It thus lasted six years and four months
for two levels of jurisdiction.
- The
Court notes that the application 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
to the merits, the Court observes that there was a substantial delay
in the proceedings before the first-instance court which took more
than six years to render a decision on the case. During that time,
the court requested information from the State authorities and
suspended the hearings, awaiting their replies. These authorities
failed to deal with the case diligently and thereby caused a
substantial delay.
- In
view of the above and having regard to its case-law (see, for
example, Bahçeyaka v. Turkey, no. 74463/01, § 20,
13 July 2006, Latif Fuat Öztürk v. Turkey, no.
54673/00, § 38, 2 February 2006), the Court considers that the
overall length of the proceedings in the present case was excessive
and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention the applicant claimed 100,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 75,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged. It therefore rejects this claim.
However, deciding on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant
EUR 3,000 in respect of non pecuniary damage.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 30,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court. He also claimed EUR 40,000
in respect of his lawyer's fee. In support of his claims he submitted
the receipts of expenses incurred before the domestic courts. The
Government contested these claims.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
awards the applicant EUR 500 in respect of costs and expenses.
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement:
(i)
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to
the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 March 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé François Tulkens
Registrar President
