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 SEVAL TEKSTİL SANAYİ VE MÜMESSİLLİK
DIŞ TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 8476/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22
September 2009
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 Seval Tekstil Sanayi ve Mümessillik Dış
Ticaret Ltd. Şti. v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András
Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş, judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 September 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 8476/05) 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 company, Seval Tekstil
Sanayi ve Mümessillik Dış Ticaret Ltd. Şti. (“the
applicant company”), on 31 January 2005. The
applicant company was represented by Mr A. Akpınar, resident in
Kocaeli. The Turkish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent. On 24
June 2008 the Court declared the application partly
inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the
length of the civil proceedings. It also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 3).
THE FACTS
- On
3 December 1997 the applicant company instituted compensation
proceedings before the Istanbul 8th Commercial Court
against a private bank (“the bank”) and claimed that it
had suffered financial loss as the bank had applied high interest
rates. Subsequently the bank filed a counterclaim and the two
proceedings were joined on 22 September 1998.
- On
20 January 2004 the court awarded the applicant company compensation.
Both parties appealed. On 18 April 2005 the Court of Cassation
quashed the judgment on procedural grounds.
- On
17 November 2005 the Istanbul 8th Commercial Court made
the procedural corrections and ordered the bank to pay compensation
to the applicant company. Both parties appealed. On 13 March 2006 the
Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant company's appeal for
having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit. However, the
Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in respect of the bank, both
on the procedure and the merits. On 30 June 2006 the applicant
company requested rectification of the judgment. On 19 June 2006 the
Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant company's request.
- On
21 June 2007 the İstanbul 8th Commercial Court issued
a decision of non-jurisdiction. On 25 January 2008 the applicant
company appealed.
- According
to the information in the case file submitted by the parties to date,
the proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant company 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 3 December 1997 and
has not yet ended. It has thus lasted nearly 11 years and 9 months
for two levels of jurisdiction, six decisions having been delivered
so far.
- The Government asked the Court to dismiss the
application for the failure of the applicant company to exhaust
domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention. In this regard, they maintained that the applicant
company did not raise the substance of its complaint before the
domestic courts.
- The
Court reiterates that it has already examined and rejected similar
objections by the Government in previous cases (see, in particular,
Karakullukçu v. Turkey, no. 49275/99, §§
27-28, 22 November 2005). The Court finds no particular circumstances
in the instant case which would require it to depart from its earlier
findings. It therefore rejects the Government's objection.
The
Court concludes 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
for the merits of the complaint, the Court has frequently found
violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising
issues similar to the one in the present application (see, among many
other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII). 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 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 of the
Convention.
- Regarding just satisfaction under Article 41 of the
Convention, the applicant company has failed to comply with Rule 60
of the Rules of Court, as well as Article 5 of the related Practice
Direction, no just satisfaction claim having been submitted when
requested. Therefore, the Court considers that there is no call to
award any sum under this head (see Marčić and Others v.
Serbia, no. 17556/05, § 63, 30 October 2007).
However,
having regard to the fact that the proceedings in question are still
pending before the domestic courts, the Court considers that the most
appropriate form of redress would be to bring them to a conclusion as
speedily as possible, while taking into account the requirements of
the proper administration of justice and Article 6 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the length of
the civil proceedings admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 September 2009,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
