12 September 2018 Wednesday
Ferat Yüksel (no. 2014/13828, 12 September 2018)
The applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, alleging that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached for the prolongation of the proceedings conducted in respect of him.
Following his individual application, a provisional article was added to Law no. 6384 on the Settlement of Some Applications Lodged with the European Court of Human Rights by means of Paying Compensation, and it was accordingly set forth that any individual application lodged with the Constitutional Court for the alleged prolongation of judicial proceedings and late/incomplete execution or non-execution of court decisions be referred to, and examined by, the Human Rights Compensation Commission of the Ministry of Justice (Commission).
The Applicant’s Allegations
The applicant maintained that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached due to the prolongation of the impugned proceedings. He therefore claimed compensation.
The Court’s Assessment
As set forth in the Provisional Article 2 added to Law no. 6384, the pending individual applications that were lodged with the Constitutional Court before 31 July 2018 for the alleged failure to conduct a trial within a reasonable time and for non-execution of court decisions shall be examined and concluded by the Commission.
This subsequently-introduced remedy must be assessed separately in terms of its accessibility as well as its capacity to offer a reasonable prospect of success and to provide sufficient redress.
Law no. 6384 provides the applicants with the opportunity to apply to the Commission within three months as from the notification of the Court’s inadmissibility decision rendered for the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Given the facts that this subsequently-introduced remedy places no financial burden on individuals and offers them the chance of directly making an application within a reasonable time, it has been concluded that it is accessible.
Considering that the structure and rules of procedures of the Commission are determined by the relevant Law and that, in particular, the Commission’s decisions are subject to judicial review whereby the safeguards inherent in the right to a fair trial are afforded during the proceedings, the Court found this remedy to be capable of providing a reasonable prospect of success.
The compensatory amount awarded by the Commission is to be paid by the relevant Ministry within three months after the decision became final. Besides, an appeal may be requested against the decision of the Commission.
As a result, it has been concluded that this remedy has the potential to provide sufficient redress as it allows for awarding compensation as well as for providing other forms of redress if the former is not possible.
Given the nature of the alleged violations in the present case, it is necessary for the applicant to lodge an application with the Commission, which is accessible prima facie and capable of presenting a reasonable prospect of success and sufficient redress for the alleged violations. It has been accordingly concluded that the Court’s examination of the individual application before exhaustion of the available remedy before the Commission would not be compatible with the subsidiarity nature of the individual application.
For the reasons explained above, the Court found the individual application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.