BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF ZAMAN v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 17839/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25
January 2011
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 Zaman v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Işıl
Karakaş,
Kristina Pardalos,
Guido
Raimondi, judges,
and Stanley Naismith,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 January 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 17839/07) 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 Şenol Zaman (“the applicant”),
on 18 April 2007.
- The
Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent.
- On
27 August 2009 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (former
Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Ankara.
- On
21 April 1998 he lodged a case with the Ankara Administrative Court
for annulment of a decision to reject his dissertation.
- On
29 September 2004 the court dismissed the applicant's request.
- On
2 December 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the
judgment of 29 September 2004.
- On
2 October 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request
by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.
- On
7 November 2006 the applicant was notified of the decision dated
2 October 2006.
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, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 21 April 1998
when the applicant lodged a case with the Ankara Administrative Court
and ended on 2 October 2006 when the Supreme Administrative Court
dismissed the request for rectification of the judgment. It thus
lasted eight years and five months before two levels of
jurisdiction.
- The
Government put forward various preliminary objections concerning
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and asked the Court to dismiss
the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as required
by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
- The
Court notes that it has already examined similar submissions made by
the respondent Government in Daneshpayeh v. Turkey
(no. 21086/04, §§ 35-38, 16 July 2009). The
Government have not submitted any arguments which could lead the
Court to reach a different conclusion in the instant case.
Consequently, the Court rejects the Government's preliminary
objections as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
- The
Government further argued that the applicant had failed to comply
with the six month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
- The
Court observes that in the present case the final decision was
notified to the applicant on 7 November 2006 and the application was
introduced on 18 April 2007 i.e. within six months following the
notification of the decision of 2 October 2006. The applicant must
therefore be considered to have complied with the six-month rule
provided under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
The Government's objection must therefore be rejected.
- The
Court notes that this complaint 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.
- As
regards the 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 and the conduct of the applicant
and of the relevant authorities (Daneshpayeh, cited above, §
26).
- 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 (Daneshpayeh, 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION
- Without
relying on any particular Article of the Convention, the applicant
complained that he was denied his right to education on account of
the administration's decision and the outcome of the judicial
proceedings.
- In
the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that
the above submissions by the applicant do not disclose any appearance
of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention
or its Protocols. It follows that these complaints must be declared
inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35
§§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
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.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on
that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
