In the case of Alhan 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. 8163/07) 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, Ms Serap Alhan (“the applicant”), on 1
February 2007.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent.
On 14 September 2010 the application was declared
partly inadmissible and the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings
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 1948 and lives in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the
applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 August 2000 the applicant instituted
compensation proceedings before the Eskişehir Administrative Court
claiming that she had contracted (HEPATIT-C) from the surgical instruments used
during her operation.
On 6 November 2001 the Eskişehir
Administrative Court found the applicant’s objection groundless and refused
her request for compensation.
On 21 December 2001 the applicant appealed
against the judgment of 6 November 2001.
On 30 January 2004 the Supreme Administrative
Court upheld the first instance court’s judgment.
On 1 August 2004 the applicant requested
rectification of the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision.
On 17 August 2004 the Eskişehir
Administrative Court issued an interim decision and noted that the fee for rectification
had not been paid. The court asked the applicant to correct this procedural
shortcoming within fifteen days.
On 7 October 2004, upon her non-compliance with
the interim decision of the court, the court decided not to put the applicant’s
rectification request into action.
On 1 November 2004 the applicant appealed.
On 11 May 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed
the administrative court’s decision not to take the applicant’s request for
rectification into account finding that the request had been properly submitted.
Yet, the Supreme Court dismissed the request upon an examination of merits
holding that there was no plausible ground requiring rectification.
On 28 August 2006 the applicant was notified of
the decision of 11 May 2006.
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
on 24 August 2000 and ended on 28 August 2006. It thus lasted almost six years
for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The Court notes that the application 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, Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, § 26-29, 16 July 2009; Frydlender
v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Yücel Doğan
v. Turkey, no. 24647/04, §§ 18-22, 6
October 2009; and Hasefe v. Turkey, no. 25580/03, §§ 28-30,
8 January 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. 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 10.000 euros (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary and 60.000 euros 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. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards her EUR 2,500
under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant claimed EUR 221 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts. She submitted three invoices
indicating the court fees and postal expenses made in domestic judicial
proceedings.
The Government contested the claim.
Regard being had to the documents in its
possession and to its case-law, the Court observes that the costs claimed concerned the introduction of the compensation
proceedings and are not due to the length. It therefore rejects the claim for
costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings.
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 the applicant, within three months, EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency
of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement,
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;
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
Popoić
Deputy Registrar President
