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 GANİMET TAŞKIN v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 17993/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 October
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ganimet Taşkın v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović,
President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto
de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 September 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an
application (no. 17993/09) 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, Ms Ganimet Taşkın (“the
applicant”), on 11 March 2009.
2. The
applicant was represented by Mr A. A. Söyler, a lawyer
practising in Izmir. The Turkish Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
- On
2 November 2010 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Izmir.
- The
applicant’s husband died in a car accident in 2001.
Subsequently, on 20 July 2001 she initiated proceedings before the
Izmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, claiming compensation from
those responsible for the accident.
- On
18 June 2007 the Izmir Civil Court decided in favour of the
applicant.
- On
28 May 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the
first-instance court and on 9 October 2008 it rejected the defendant
party’s request for rectification.
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,
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 argument. They maintained that the impugned
proceedings could not be considered to have been excessively long in
view of the complexity of the case, the difficulties in collecting
evidence and the notification process. They concluded therefore that
there had been no delay in the proceedings that could be attributable
to the State.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 20 July 2001 and ended
on 9 October 2008. It thus lasted seven years and two months for two
levels of jurisdiction.
- The
Court notes that the application 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.
- 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 v. France
[GC], no. 30979/96, §§ 42-46, ECHR
2000 VII, and Daneshpayeh
v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 26-29,
16 July 2009).
- 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.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just
satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call
to award her any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application
admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović Deputy
Registrar President
