[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF AHMET İLHAN v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 8030/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
December 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ahmet İlhan v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
President,
Guido Raimondi,
Helen Keller,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 29 November 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an
application (no. 8030/07) 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 Ahmet İlhan (“the applicant”),
on 6 February 2007.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr S. Güçlü, a lawyer
practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
- On
4 September 2009 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Turkey.
- On
16 October 2000 the applicant, a police officer, lodged an
administrative case against the Ministry of Internal Affairs for
having refused his compensation claim concerning his damage arising
from a traffic accident.
- On
28 December 2001 the Ankara Administrative Court granted the
applicant’s request.
- On
2 June 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of
28 December 2001.
- On
5 July 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by
the applicant for rectification of the judgment.
- According
to the information submitted by the Government, on 19 December
2006 the administrative court dismissed the case and the applicant
did not appeal against it.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- 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, 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.
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 16 October 2000
and ended on 19 December 2006. It thus lasted six years and two
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
- The
applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of
Protocol No. 12 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
that the administrative decision refusing him compensation was
discriminatory, as other police officers in the same situation had
received awards of compensation.
- The Court considers that, as Protocol
No. 12
has not been ratified by the respondent State, the applicant’s
complaint in this regard is incompatible ratione personae with
the Convention and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35
§§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
- As
regards the remaining complaints, having regard to all material in
its possession, the Court finds that the applicant did not exhaust
domestic remedies as he failed to appeal against the decision of 19
December 2006. It follows that these complaints must be rejected
under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the
Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect
of pecuniary and EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims as being excessive.
- As
regards pecuniary damage, the applicant did not submit any argument
substantiating his claim. That being so, the Court cannot allow the
compensation claim submitted under this head. On the other hand, the
Court considers that the applicant must have
sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it
awards him EUR 3,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on
that account.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 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;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months, 3,000 (three thousand) euros, to be converted
into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of settlement,
plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary
damage;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 20 December 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre
Deputy
Registrar President
