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 BÜYÜKKOL v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 24280/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4
October 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Büyükkol v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović,
President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto
de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 September 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an
application (no. 24280/09) 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 two
Turkish nationals, Ms Hatice Büyükkol and Ms Berna
Büyükkol (“the
applicants”), on 6 April 2009.
2. The
applicants were represented by Mr Y. Ertan, a lawyer practising in
Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent.
- On
2 November 2010 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1980 and 2000 respectively and
live in Istanbul.
- The
first applicant’s husband, who is also the second applicant’s
father, deceased in a car accident in 2001. Subsequently, on
7 November 2001 the applicants initiated proceedings before the
Şişli Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, claiming
compensation from those liable of the accident.
- On
20 July 2006 the Şişli Civil Court partially accepted the
case and awarded the applicants a total of 25,705 Turkish Liras
(TRY)
for pecuniary damage and TRY 5,000
for non-pecuniary damage, plus all interest that would be applicable
to that amount.
- On
13 May 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the
first-instance court with a minor amendment. On 23 October 2008 it
rejected the defendant party’s request for rectification.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- 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, 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
Government contested that argument. They maintained that the impugned
proceedings could not be considered to have been excessively long in
view of the complexity of the case, the difficulties in collecting
evidence and the notification process. They concluded therefore that
there had been no delay in the proceedings that may be attributable
to the State.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 7 November 2001
and ended on 23 October 2008. It thus lasted six years and eleven
months for two levels of jurisdiction.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender v. France
[GC], no. 30979/96, §§ 42 –
46, ECHR 2000-VII; and Daneshpayeh v.
Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 26 –
29, 16 July 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.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case 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.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Relying
upon Articles 1 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants
complained about the outcome of the proceedings before the Şişli
Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. They maintained, in particular,
that the non-pecuniary compensation awarded by the domestic court was
insufficient.
- The Court notes that the
complaint under Article 1 of the Convention should be evaluated from
the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 alone. It 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; Streletz,
Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC],
nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001 II;
and Göktaş v. Turkey, no. 66446/01, §§
32-34, 29 November 2007). It also points
out 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).
16. 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.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
- The
applicants did not submit a claim for just
satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call
to award them any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović
Deputy Registrar President
