[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> GOKHAN OZDEMIR v. TURKEY - 33625/09 - HEJUD [2013] ECHR 264 (02 April 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/264.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 264

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF GÖKHAN ÖZDEMİR v. TURKEY

 

(Application no. 33625/09)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 




April 2013

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 




In the case of Gökhan Özdemir 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. 33625/09) 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 Gökhan Özdemir (“the applicant”), on 5 June 2009.




  The applicant was represented by Mr E. Çıragül, a lawyer practising in Ankara. 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 1985 and lives in Ankara.

6.  He had a fight with his schoolmate and as a consequence lost an eye.

7.  The applicant’s parents lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor’s Office since he was a minor at the time of the incident.

8.  On 15 February 2000 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the student with whom the applicant fought with the Tenth Chamber of the Ankara Criminal Court.

9.  On 23 June 2000 the applicant and his parents further lodged a civil case requesting reparation for damages with the Ankara Civil Court.




  On 5 November 2003 the applicant’s father joined the criminal proceedings as the intervening civil party (in his capacity as the applicant’s legal guardian).




  Between 5 November 2003 and 21 February 2008 two courts declined jurisdiction in the case on account of certain procedural rules. On 21 February 2008 the Ankara Juvenile Court decided to discontinue the proceedings by virtue of statute of limitations.

12.  On 28 January 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 21 February 2008.

13.  Meanwhile, in the civil proceedings, the Ankara Civil Court decided to wait for the outcome of the criminal case and no procedural step was taken up until the finalisation of the case before the criminal court.

14.  On 20 January 2010 the Ankara Civil Court rendered its judgment.

15.  On 8 July 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Civil Court.

16.  The civil proceedings are currently pending before the Ankara Civil Court.

THE LAW

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION




  The applicant complained that the length of both civil and criminal 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.

A.  Admissibility

1.  As regards the length of criminal proceedings




  The Court observes that the applicant’s father joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party only in 2003. Besides, there is nothing in the case-file which demonstrates that he requested compensation or reserved his right to do so when he joined those proceedings. The Court therefore concludes that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable to the criminal proceedings in the present case (see Beyazgül v. Turkey, no. 27849/03, §37, 22 September 2009).




  It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

2.  As regards the length of civil proceedings;




  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




  As regards the period to be taken into consideration, the civil proceedings began on 23 June 2000 and were still pending before the first instance court on the date of the adoption of the judgment. They have therefore already lasted more than twelve years and nine months before two levels of jurisdiction.




  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).




  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 15,700 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 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, it awards the applicant EUR 9,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

B.  Costs and expenses




  The applicant claimed EUR 352 for his lawyer’s fees incurred at the domestic level. He did not submit any document in support of his claim.




  The Government contested this claim.




  In the absence of any supporting document, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts.

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 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of civil proceedings 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

(a)  That the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 9,600 (nine thousand six 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;

 

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                                                          Peer Lorenzen
     Deputy Registrar                                                                   President