ECHR judgment of 23 May 2017 in the case of Cevikel v. Turkey (application No. 23121/15).
In 2015, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the length of the proceedings instituted by the applicant against the authorities in order to obtain compensation for damage caused as a result of terrorist acts or counter-terrorism measures. There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
On 21 December 2006 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Turkish authorities with a view to obtaining compensation for causing damage, which, she said, had been caused by terrorist acts or counter-terrorism measures. After applying to the commission established in accordance with Law No. 5233 and the administrative courts, the applicant lodged an individual complaint with the Constitutional Court, which ruled on April 14, 2015. The applicant complained to the European Court about the length of the proceedings in the compensation commission, administrative courts and the Constitutional Court.
ISSUES OF LAW
(a) Applicability. The dispute over compensation for alleged damage caused by terrorist acts or counter-terrorism measures was material in nature and undoubtedly affected civil law provided for in article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. After the proceedings in the commission set up in accordance with Law No. 5233 and the administrative courts, the applicant lodged an individual complaint with the Constitutional Court, arguing that her constitutional and convention rights were violated as a result of this proceedings. If the Constitutional Court had established one or more violations of the applicant's rights under the Constitution, the Convention or the Protocols thereto, owing to the shortcomings in the proceedings before the commission and the administrative courts, he could have sent the case back to the administrative courts for the resumption of the proceedings, then she would have had the prospect of obtaining an adequate compensation for the alleged damage.
Thus, the decision of the Constitutional Court was directly decisive for the civil rights of the applicant. Moreover, even though he rejected the applicant's complaint in the preliminary admissibility procedure, he nevertheless considered the applicant's substantive arguments in the reasoning and, in particular, examined in detail whether the administrative courts had violated the rejection of the applicant's claim for compensation under with Act No. 5233, her rights under the Constitution, the Convention or the Protocols thereto. Consequently, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies to this procedure.
(b) Merits. The period to be taken into account lasted approximately eight years and four months at four levels of jurisdiction. The proceedings in the administrative courts lasted approximately two years and two months, and the Constitutional Court proceedings were one year and four months, that is, they were not excessively long. However, in view of the heavy workload of the commission and the appropriateness of the measures taken by the authorities to eliminate the problem under consideration, these efforts remained insufficient, since the commission began considering the applicant's request in about two years and 10 months. The length of the proceedings was excessive and did not meet the requirement of a reasonable time.
The violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.