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 >>
KARYACDI v. TURKEY - 22956/04 [2008] ECHR 5 (8 January 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/5.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 5
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF KARYAĞDI v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 22956/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 January
2008
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 Karyağdı v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
András Baka,
Riza
Türmen,
Mindia Ugrekhelidze,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 December 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 22956/04) 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 Cem
Karyağdı (“the applicant”), on 28 May 2004.
The
applicant was represented by Mr E Çiçek, a lawyer
practising in Bursa. The Turkish Government (“the
Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the
proceedings before the Court.
On
11 January 2007 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 1981 and lives in Bursa. At the time of the
events he was employed by S.İ and M.U.
In
1997 the applicant was injured in an occupational accident and lost
the third and fourth fingers of his left hand.
On
22 December 1997 the applicant filed an action for compensation
before the Bursa Civil Court of First Instance against S.İ., M.U
and two other individuals who were allegedly responsible for the
accident.
On
16 June 2000, an expert report assessing the extent of the damage
suffered by the applicant was submitted to the court.
On
12 September 2000 the applicant lodged another case with the same
court, claiming further damages. These two procedures were later
joined.
On
16 January 2002 the Bursa Civil Court of First Instance decided that
it did not have jurisdiction to examine the applicant's case.
On
20 February 2002 the defendants appealed against this decision.
On
23 May 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision.
On
31 July 2002 the case was resumed before the Bursa Labour Court.
The
first hearing was held on 21 November 2002. The court requested a
report regarding the applicant's disability.
On
30 June and 20 October 2003, the court postponed the scheduled
hearings as the report requested on 21 November 2002 had not yet been
submitted.
On
11 March 2004 the report was submitted to the court. At the same
hearing the court requested all the medical reports regarding the
applicant. Furthermore, it requested that the applicant be
re-examined by the Social Security Hospital.
The
court held eight hearings after 11 March 2004, the last of which was
on 19 October 2006.
According
to the information in the case file, as submitted by the parties, the
proceedings are apparently still pending before the Bursa Labour
Court.
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 of
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 claim.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 22 December 1997 and,
according to the information in the case file as last submitted by
the parties, had not yet ended by the date of adoption of the present
judgment. It has therefore already lasted some nine years and eleven
months for two levels of jurisdiction, which produced four judgments.
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
further recalls the necessity of special diligence in employment
disputes (see Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992,
Series A no. 230 D, § 17; Varelas v. France,
no. 16616/02, § 31, 27 July 2006).
The
Court observes in the instant case that it took four years for the
Bursa Civil Court of First Instance to decide that it did not have
jurisdiction to examine the applicant's case.
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 Frydlender, cited above).
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 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO
THE CONVENTION
The applicant further alleged under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 that the excessive length of the proceedings had
resulted in an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment
of his possessions.
The
Government did not submit observations on the admissibility and
merits of this complaint.
Noting
its finding of a violation in relation to Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention (see paragraph 26 above), the Court considers that,
although this complaint is admissible, it is not necessary to make a
separate examination of its merits (see Kroenitz v. Poland,
no. 77746/01, §§ 36-37, 25 February 2003;
Vatevi v. Bulgaria, no. 55956/00, § 48, 28 September
2006).
III. 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 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage
and EUR 10,000 for 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.
However, the Court accepts that the applicant must have suffered some
non-pecuniary damage on account of the duration of the proceedings,
which cannot be sufficiently compensated by the finding of a
violation alone. Having regard to its case-law and making its
assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant
EUR 4,800 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed EUR 9,500 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and EUR 7,200 for those incurred before
the Court.
The
Government contested these claims.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
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
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 for any costs
and expenses incurred by the applicant.
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 that it is not necessary to examine
separately the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to 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, the following
amounts, to be converted into new Turkish liras at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
4,800 (four thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR
1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any
taxes that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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 8 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Section Registrar President
