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 >>
KARADAVUT v. TURKEY - 17604/04 [2008] ECHR 90 (29 January 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/90.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 90
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF KARADAVUT v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 17604/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 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 Karadavut v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
András
Baka,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Riza
Türmen,
Mindia
Ugrekhelidze,
Antonella
Mularoni,
Danutė
Jočienė,
judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 17604/04) 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, Hakkı
Karadavut (“the applicant”), on 3 May 2004.
The
applicant was represented by Mr A. Inal, a lawyer practising in
Aydın. The Turkish Government (“the
Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the
proceedings before the Court.
On
5 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 1963 and lives in Söke.
At
the time of the events the applicant was employed as an electrician
in a private company.
On
2 August 1991 the scaffolding on which the applicant was working
collapsed and resulted in the applicant's total disability.
On
16 September 1991 the applicant brought an action for damages in the
Söke Labour Court.
On
3 February 1994 the Söke Labour Court partially upheld the
applicant's claims and awarded 10,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) for
pecuniary damage and TRL 30,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage, plus
interest at the statutory rate, running from the date of the
incident.
The
defendant appealed.
On
11 October 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and
remitted the case to the Söke Labour Court. It found that the
Labour Court had incorrectly calculated the amount of compensation
and interest.
The
Söke Labour Court rendered its second judgment on 12 September
1995, awarding the same amounts as before.
On
23 January 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. It held
that, although the Söke Labour Court had decided to conform to
the Court of Cassation's previous decision, it had reached the same
conclusion as before.
On
29 November 1996 the applicant lodged an additional claim with the
same court, requesting further damages. These two cases were later
joined.
The
Söke Labour Court issued its third judgment on 12 June 1997. It
upheld the applicant's additional claim lodged on 29 November 1996
and granted TRL 1,574,919,236 for pecuniary damage and TRL 30,000,000
for non-pecuniary damage, plus interest at the statutory rate,
running from the date of the judgment and from the date of the
incident respectively.
The
defendant appealed.
On
21 October 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the Labour Court's
decision for the third time on the same ground as before.
On
3 November 1998 the Söke Labour Court issued its fourth
judgment, dismissing the applicant's pecuniary damage claims as a
whole. In its reasoning, the court held that the Court of Cassation's
assessment method was inapplicable to the incident. It also pointed
out that its previous decision regarding the applicant's
non-pecuniary damage claims had become final on 3 February 1994 as
the defendant had not challenged it.
The
applicant appealed.
On
4 May 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the first instance court's
decision on the ground that it had not calculated the applicant's
damage in compliance with the principles stated in its judgment of
11 November 1994.
On
17 May 2001 the Söke Labour Court awarded the applicant
TRL 1,579,135,521 for pecuniary damage plus interest at the
statutory rate, running from the date of the judgment.
Both
parties appealed.
On
8 November 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the Söke Labour
Court's judgment for the fifth time, criticising the method of
calculation applied by the Labour Court.
On
16 February 2006 the Labour Court awarded the applicant 1,579 New
Turkish liras (YTL) for his pecuniary damage claims, plus interest at
the statutory rate, running from the date of the judgment.
The
applicant appealed.
On
12 June 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the Söke Labour
Court's judgment in full without giving any reasons of its own.
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 16 September 1991 and
ended on 12 June 2006. It thus lasted fourteen years and nine months
for two levels of jurisdiction, which delivered twelve judgments in
all.
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).
In
the present case Court notes that the issue was the assessment of
damages in a labour accident, a matter of priority (Ruotolo v.
Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, §
17) but not complex.
The
Court acknowledges that there appear to be no significant delays
between hearings and the domestic courts delivered a total of twelve
judgments in a period approaching fifteen years. However, the Court
observes that there was a dispute between the first instance court
and the Court of Cassation on the damage assessment method, which led
both tribunals to deliver repetitive judgments, confirming the same
views several times. The Court further notes that the Söke
Labour Court initially accepted to conform to the Court of
Cassation's judgments, but then proceeded to ignore them in its three
judgments of 12 June 1997, 17 May 2001 and 16 February 2006,
awarding the same amounts which it had originally determined.
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 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. 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 250,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
The
Government contested this claim.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him
EUR 6,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed EUR 690,088.23 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and for those incurred before the
Court. The applicant did not submit a claim for his lawyer's fee but
left the matter to the Court's discretion.
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
rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings.
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, the following
amounts, to be converted into new Turkish liras at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
6,000 (six thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
(ii) 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 29 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
