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 ATEŞSÖNMEZ v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 22487/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16
February 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 Ateşsönmez 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 Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 26 January 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 22487/05) 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 Naif
Ateşsönmez (“the applicant”), on 3 June 2005.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent.
- On
8 October 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 1947 and lives in Istanbul.
- Following
the privatisation of the public institute where he was employed as an
inspector, on 19 March 1999 the applicant was appointed to a new post
at the Social Security Institution for the Self Employed
(Bağ Kur).
- On
16 April 1999 the applicant brought a case before the Ankara
Administrative Court against the Prime Minister's Office and Bağ-Kur
to challenge his appointment.
- On
2 December 1999 the administrative court dismissed the applicant's
request, holding that his appointment had been effected in accordance
with the relevant domestic law.
- On
14 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision
of the administrative court and on 1 February 2006 it rejected the
applicant's rectification request.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contested that
argument.
- The
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration lasted
six years, nine months and nineteen days before two levels of
jurisdiction, and the case was pending before the Supreme
Administrative Court for approximately six years of this total
period.
- The
Court notes that this complaint 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.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
application (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v.
France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and
Karakullukçu v. Turkey, no. 49275/99, §§
30-39, 22 November 2005). Having examined all the material submitted
to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward
any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a
different conclusion in the present circumstances. Having regard to
its case law on the subject, the Court considers that 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 of the Convention.
- Relying
on Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant also
complained that he had been denied a fair hearing as the domestic
courts had failed to duly respond to his arguments, that the Supreme
Administrative Court's decisions lacked reasoning and that his
appointment disrupted his family life and constituted discrimination.
- However,
in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds
that the above submissions by the applicant do not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention or its Protocols. It follows that these complaints must be
declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see, in
particular, Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April
1994, § 61, Series A no. 288, and García Ruiz v. Spain
[GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999 I).
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction under
Article 41 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court considers
that there is no call to award him 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 26 February 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens
Deputy
Registrar President
