SECOND SECTION

CASE OF MEHMET SALİH UÇAR v. TURKEY

(Application no. 5485/07)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 April 2013

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mehmet Salih Uçar 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
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 5485/07) 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 Mehmet Salih Uçar (“the applicant”), on 18 January 2007.
2.  The applicant was represented by Mr Ö. Bozkurt and Mr S. Bozkurt, lawyers practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3.  On 27 August 2009 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Batman.
5.  In October 2000 the applicant lodged a case with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court against the Ministry of Interior for the annulment of an administrative decision refusing his request for compensation of disability.
6.  On 20 October 2000 the court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Ankara Administrative Court, which dismissed the applicant’s claim on 10 March 2003.
7.  On 22 March 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 10 March 2003.
8.  On 12 July 2006 the applicant’s request for rectification introduced on 25 March 2005 was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court.
9.  On 24 August 2006 the judgment was notified to the applicant.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
10.  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...”
11.  The Government contested that argument.
12.  The period to be taken into consideration began in October 2000 and ended on 12 July 2006. The proceedings lasted approximately five years and nine months before two instances.
A.  Admissibility
13.  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
14.  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 Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, § 28, 16 July 2009, and Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey, no. 24240/07, § 49, 20 March 2012).
15.  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.
16.  There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
17.  The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law whereby he could have contested the length of the proceedings brought against him.
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority...”
18.  The Government contested the argument.
A.  Admissibility
19.  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
20.  The Court has examined similar issues in previous applications and has found violations of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the lack of an effective remedy under Turkish law whereby the applicants could have contested the length of the proceedings at issue (see Daneshpayeh, cited above, §§ 35-38, and Ümmühan Kaplan, cited above, §§ 56-58). It finds no reason to depart from that conclusion in the present case.
21.  The Court accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION
22.  The applicant submits under Article 6 of the Convention that he was denied a fair hearing as the domestic courts erred in their assessment of the facts. The applicant argues that the same court, namely the Supreme Administrative Court, examined both the requests for leave to appeal and for rectification of the judgment, in violation of his right under Article 13 of the Convention.
23.  An examination by the Court of the material submitted to it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
24.  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
25.  The applicant claimed 179,138,71 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and EUR 40,000 as non-pecuniary damage.
26.  The Government contested the claim.
27.  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 2,700 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
B.  Costs and expenses
28.  The applicant also claimed EUR 3,475,75 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and for those incurred before the Court. Referring to the Ankara Bar Association’s scale of legal fees, the applicant’s representative further claimed EUR 3,193,52 covering legal work spent on the presentation of the present case before the Court. The Court notes that the applicant did not submit any documents for his claim; the Court makes no award in this respect.
29.  The Government contested the claim.
30.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses.
C.  Default interest
31.  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 complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention concerning the length of proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that respect 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 that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;

4.  Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 2,700 (two thousand seven 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;

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’ 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