European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 29643/05
by Türkan ARAS
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Antonella Mularoni,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 June 2005,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Türkan Aras, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bursa. She is represented before the Court by Mr E.H. Özdemir, Ms H. Günaydın and Ms N. Çengel, lawyers practising in Bursa.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1.  First set of proceedings before the First Chamber of the Bursa Administrative Court

The applicant was a civil servant serving at the Bursa Governor’s Office.

On 18 May 1999 the applicant was temporarily appointed to a public post at the İnegöl District Governor’s Office, located approximately 45 km from the city centre of Bursa, in accordance with the Law no. 657 (the Law on Civil Servants).

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a case with the First Chamber of the Bursa Administrative Court for the annulment of her temporary appointment and also requested a stay of execution.

On 18 August 1999 the First Chamber of the Bursa Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a stay of execution.

On 20 September 1999 the applicant objected to the dismissal of her request for a stay of execution.

On 27 September 1999 the Bursa Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s objection.

On 20 December 1999 the First Chamber of the Bursa Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case holding that the temporary appointment had been effected in accordance with Article 86 of the Law no. 657.

On 20 June 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the First Chamber of the Bursa Administrative Court.

On 24 October 2002 the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court was served on the applicant.

2.  Second set of proceedings before the Second Chamber of the Bursa Administrative Court

On 7 December 1999 the applicant was temporarily appointed to another public post in the Osmangazi District Governor’s Office.

On 2 February 2000 the applicant lodged a case with the Second Chamber of the Bursa Administrative Court for the annulment of this temporary appointment and also requested a stay of execution.

On 5 April 2000 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s request for a stay of execution.

On an unspecified date the applicant objected to the dismissal of her request for a stay of execution.

On 15 May 2000 the Second Chamber of the Bursa Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s objection.

On 16 November 2000 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s case holding that the temporary appointment had been effected in accordance with Article 86 of the Law no. 657.

On 26 March 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

On 26 October 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for the rectification of its previous decision.

On 23 December 2004 the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26 October 2004 was served on the applicant.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant contended under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the second set of proceedings which began before the Second Chamber of the Bursa Administrative Court and continued before the Supreme Administrative Court had not been concluded within a reasonable time.

The applicant complained under Article 8 that her initial temporary appointment to the İnegöl District Governor’s Office had interfered with her right to family life as it involved commuting 90 km to and from İnegöl each day for a period of four months. The applicant further complained under the same head that her right to private life had been violated as her successive temporary appointments had led to various rumours and the change of her environment had interfered with her personal development.

The applicant maintained that the loss of income and other financial consequences arising from her temporary appointments had amounted to a violation of her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.1.

The applicant further argued that her appointments had been motivated by discriminatory purposes in violation of Article 14 of the Convention.

The applicant finally alleged a breach of Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention on the basis of the above-mentioned facts.

THE LAW

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

The Court observes that the domestic proceedings in relation to the applicant’s appointment to the İnegöl District Governor’s Office ended on 20 June 2002 and the decision was served on the applicant on 24 October 2002, whereas the application was submitted to the Court on 24 June 2005.

It follows that this complaint falls outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person’s existing possessions. Thus, future income cannot be considered to constitute “possessions” unless it has already been earned or is definitely payable (see, inter alia, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-...; Denmark v. the United Kingdom, no. 37660/97, decision of 26 September 2000; Ian Edgar [Liverpool] Ltd. v. the United Kingdom, no. 37683/97, decision of 25 January 2000; and Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, § 98, 6 December 2007). This was not the situation in the present case.

It follows that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

The Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence.

It follows that this part of the application should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the second set of proceedings before the Second Chamber of the Bursa Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President