SECOND SECTION
CASE OF
MEHMET SALİH UÇAR v. TURKEY
(Application no.
5485/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 April 2013
This judgment is final but it may
be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mehmet Salih Uçar v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human
Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, 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.
5485/07) 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 Mehmet Salih Uçar (“the
applicant”), on 18 January 2007.
The applicant was represented
by Mr Ö. Bozkurt and Mr S. Bozkurt, lawyers practising in Ankara. The
Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 27 August 2009 the application was
communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in
Batman.
In October 2000 the applicant lodged a case with
the Diyarbakır Administrative Court against the Ministry of Interior for
the annulment of an administrative decision refusing his request for
compensation of disability.
On 20 October 2000 the court issued a decision of
non-jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Ankara Administrative Court,
which dismissed the applicant’s claim on 10 March 2003.
On 22 March 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court
upheld the judgment of 10 March 2003.
On 12 July 2006 the applicant’s request for rectification
introduced on 25 March 2005 was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court.
On 24 August 2006 the judgment was notified to
the applicant.
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.
The period to be taken into consideration began
in October 2000 and ended on 12 July 2006. The proceedings lasted approximately
five years and nine months before two instances.
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 Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, § 28, 16 July 2009, and Ümmühan
Kaplan v. Turkey, no. 24240/07, § 49, 20 March 2012).
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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained under Article 13 of the
Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law whereby he
could have contested the length of the proceedings brought against him.
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention
are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority...”
The Government contested the argument.
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 has examined similar issues in previous applications and has found
violations of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the lack of an
effective remedy under Turkish law whereby the applicants could have contested
the length of the proceedings at issue (see Daneshpayeh, cited above, §§
35-38, and Ümmühan Kaplan, cited above, §§ 56-58). It finds no reason to
depart from that conclusion in the present case.
The Court accordingly concludes that there has
been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant submits under Article 6 of the
Convention that he was denied a fair hearing as the domestic courts erred in
their assessment of the facts. The applicant argues that the same court, namely
the Supreme Administrative Court, examined both the requests for leave to
appeal and for rectification of the judgment, in violation of his right under
Article 13 of the Convention.
. An
examination by the Court of the material submitted to it does not disclose any
appearance of a violation of these provisions. It follows that this part of the
application is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. 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 179,138,71 euros (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary and EUR 40,000 as non-pecuniary damage.
The Government contested the claim.
. 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,
it awards the applicant EUR 2,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 3,475,75 for the
costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and for those incurred
before the Court. Referring to the Ankara Bar Association’s
scale of legal fees, the applicant’s representative further claimed EUR
3,193,52 covering legal work spent on the presentation of the present case
before the Court. The Court notes that the applicant did not submit any
documents for his claim; the Court makes no award in this respect.
The Government contested the claim.
. Regard
being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the
Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses.
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 complaints under Articles 6 §
1 and 13 of the Convention concerning the length of proceedings and the lack of
effective remedies in that respect admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within
three months, EUR 2,700 (two thousand seven hundred euros), 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’
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 Peer
Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar President
