British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
ERDEN v. TURKEY - 27719/02 [2007] ECHR 960 (20 November 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/960.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 960
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF ERDEN v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 27719/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
November 2007
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 Erden v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mrs F. Tulkens, President,
Mr A.B.
Baka,
Mr I. Cabral Barreto,
Mr R.
Türmen,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mr V.
Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Mularoni, judges,
and Mrs F.
Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 27719/02) 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 Ali Erden
(“the applicant”), on 10 April 2002.
The
applicant was represented by Ms T. Aslan, a lawyer practising in
Izmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”)
did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before
the Court.
On
12 September 2006 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Antalya.
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
On
7 October 1999 the applicant was taken into custody for his suspected
involvement in terrorist activities. On the same date the
Magistrates' Court of Antalya ordered his detention pending trial.
At
a hearing held on 25 November 1999, the State Security Court of Izmir
ordered the applicant's release.
On
29 June 2000 he was acquitted of all charges.
On
10 August 2000 he applied to the Antalya Assize Court, seeking
compensation pursuant to Law no. 466. That Law provides,
inter alia, for an award of damages to any person who has been
unlawfully deprived of his or her liberty, or who, after being
lawfully detained, was not subsequently committed for trial or was
acquitted after standing trial.
The
applicant claimed a total of 6,050,000,000 Turkish Liras
(TRL) in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, comprising lost wages
as a construction worker, legal costs and fees and moral damages.
On
13 June 2002 the court handed down a judgment awarding the applicant
an unspecified sum of money.
Upon
separate appeals by the applicant as well as the Treasury, the Court
of Cassation quashed that ruling on 12 May 2003 and remitted the file
to the Antalya Assize Court for a more comprehensive examination.
The
assize court resumed the proceedings by broadening the scope of its
examination of the damage which the applicant had suffered. On
23 September 2003 the court gave a second judgment, which the
Court of Cassation quashed on 18 October 2004. Once again the Court
of Cassation directed the court to conduct a more thorough research
into the applicant's entitlement to damages.
On
18 February 2005 the assize court handed down its third ruling,
awarding the applicant 781 New Turkish liras.
The parties appealed separately.
The
applicant learned through his verbal contacts with the assize court's
registry that on 6 February 2006 the Court of Cassation had upheld
the latter judgment with certain rectifications.
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 10 August 2000 and
ended on 6 February 2006. It thus lasted nearly five years and six
months before two levels of jurisdiction, with two remittals.
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that the application 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.
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, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
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 Ali Rıza Doğan v. Turkey, no.
50165/99, §§ 31-39, 22 December 2005; Yalman and Others
v. Turkey, no. 36110/97, § 23, 3 June 2004).
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 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government submitted that no award should be made under this head.
They asserted, alternatively, that any award to be made by the Court
should not lead to unjust enrichment.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained
non pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards
him EUR 2,500 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed EUR 4,150 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
The
Government contended that the applicant's claim was unsubstantiated.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to 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. In the present case, regard being had to the information in
its possession and the above criteria, the Court finds it reasonable
to award the sum of EUR 1,500 for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,500 (two
thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) for costs and expenses, to be
converted into New Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement and free of any taxes or charges that may be payable;
(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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
F. Elens-Passos F. Tulkens Deputy Registrar President
