SECOND SECTION
CASE OF
KIRANEL v. TURKEY
(Application no.
26964/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 April 2013
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kıranel
v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 March 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 26964/09) 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 a Turkish national, Mr Akın Kıranel (“the
applicant”), on 6 May 2009.
The applicant was
represented by Mr M. Köksal, a lawyer practising in İstanbul. The Turkish
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 2 November 2010 the
application was communicated to the Government.
The Government objected to the examination of the
application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection,
the Court rejects it.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul.
His wife and daughter died in a traffic accident.
On 8 March 2005 the applicant instituted civil
proceedings before the Istanbul Civil Court against the driver involved in the
accident and the company holding the possession of the vehicle the driver had
driven and requested compensation for damages he suffered.
On an unspecified date the Istanbul Civil Court
declined jurisdiction in respect of the claims brought against the company and
referred that part of the case to the Civil Court in Kartal, where the company’s
headquarters was located.
On 4 April 2006 the Kartal Civil Court decided to
wait for the finalisation of the criminal proceedings regarding the accident.
On 6 May 2008, after the criminal proceedings
were finalised, the defendant company requested the Kartal Civil Court to await
the finalisation of the other case against the driver which was before the Istanbul Civil Court.
The Kartal Civil Court granted this request. From
that day onwards no action was taken on the civil case before the Kartal Civil Court.
On 27 February 2012 the Court of Cassation
upheld the decision of the Istanbul Civil Court against the driver.
The civil proceedings against the defendant
company are still pending before the Kartal Civil Court.
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained that the length of the civil
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.
The period to be taken into consideration began
on 8 March 2005, when the applicant instituted civil proceedings, and the proceedings
are still pending. At the date of the adoption of the judgment, it has thus
lasted seven years and eleven months before one level of
jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
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.
B. Merits
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of
the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of
the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the
case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at
stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities Daneshpayeh
v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, § 28, 16 July
2009).
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, for example, Sebahattin
Evcimen v. Turkey, no. 31792/06, §§
28-34, 23 February 2010).
. Turning to the particular
circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that on 6 May 2008 the Kartal Civil Court decided to await the outcome of the proceedings before the Istanbul Civil Court. The Court reiterates that it is the role
of the domestic courts to manage their proceedings so that they are expeditious
and effective (see, Sebahattin Evcimen, cited above, § 32 and the cases cited therein). The Court thus cannot but
conclude that the Kartal Civil Court did not act with due diligence, having
regard to what was at stake for the applicant.
The Court further notes 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. 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 69,079 euros (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary and EUR 10,000 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. On the other hand, the Court
considers that the applicant must have suffered some non-pecuniary damage.
It therefore awards the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 7,029 for the
costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and for those incurred
before the court. In support of his claims, the applicant submitted copies of
taxi receipts, postal receipts and referred to the Turkish Bar Association’s
tariff of fees for attorneys.
The Government contested the claim.
The Court reiterates that
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. The Court reminds that the mere submission
of the Turkish Bar Association’s tariff of fees for attorneys cannot suffice to establish
such expense. It observes that three of the taxi receipts bear the same date of
the hearings to which the applicant’s lawyer attended and that the postal
receipts concern the communication with the Court. Having regard to these
documents, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 50
under this head,
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
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent
State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted
into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement:
(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 50 (fifty 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;
4. Dismisses
the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 April 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise
Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović
Deputy Registrar President
