SECOND SECTION

CASE OF VEDAT ARSLAN v. TURKEY

(Application no. 37927/04)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

18 January 2011

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Vedat Arslan v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Danutė Jočienė, President,
	Nona Tsotsoria,
	Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 37927/04) 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 Vedat Arslan (“the applicant”), on 7 August 2004. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
2.  On 24 March 2009 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaints concerning the length of the compensation proceedings. In accordance with Protocol no. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
3.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Ankara.
4.  On 17 June 2003 the applicant brought compensation proceedings against the Governor of Kayseri, along with another person, before the First Chamber of the Kayseri Civil Court (case no. 2003/570).
5.  On 22 April 2005 the Governor of Kayseri brought counter‑proceedings for compensation before the Fourth Chamber of the Kayseri Civil Court (2005/168). On 11 September 2006 the cases were joined.
6.  On 5 June 2008 the court of first instance rejected both claims.
7.  On 11 May 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Kayseri Civil Court and on 8 October 2009 it rejected the applicant's rectification request.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
8.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
9.  The Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration lasted six years, three months and twenty-three days before two levels of jurisdiction, and the case was pending before the first-instance court for approximately five years of this total period.
10.  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.
11.  As for the merits, the Government maintained that it had essentially been the conduct of the applicant which had delayed the determination of his claim. They pointed out that the applicant had failed to pay the expenses required for the collection of evidence for the first eight months of the proceedings, which evidence was essential for the completion of the case file. Moreover, he had not attended some hearings and had requested several additional time-limits to submit certain statements and documents.
12.  The applicant maintained his allegations.
13.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in applications raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Hayrettin Kartal v. Turkey, no. 4520/02, § 21, 20 October 2005 and Güngil v. Turkey, no. 28388/03, § 26, 10 March 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. The Court particularly notes that, whilst the delay in the payment of the various court expenses might have somewhat prolonged the proceedings, the applicant's conduct alone could not justify their entire length. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court therefore 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.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14.  The applicant claimed 130,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, mainly for his and his daughter's living and other expenses.
15.  The Government contested these claims as being unsubstantiated.
16.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
17.  The applicant did not submit any claims for non-pecuniary damage or cost and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum under these heads.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1.  Declares the remainder of the application admissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  Dismisses the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

	Françoise Elens-Passos	Danutė Jočienė
	Deputy Registrar	President