PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 53672/00) 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 two Turkish nationals, Mr Ayhan Çakmak and Mrs Süreyya Çakmak (“the applicants”), on 2 August 1999.

The applicants were represented by Mr O.K. Cengiz, a lawyer practising in Izmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of compensation proceedings.

The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

By a decision of 23 September 2003 the Court declared the application admissible.

The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). The case was assigned to the newly composed Second Section.

THE FACTS

The applicants were born in 1952 and 1959 respectively and live in Izmir.

In 1987 the applicants' daughter, C.Ç., was severely injured in an accident. Her hair was burned and part of her scalp was damaged.

On 24 November 1992 C.Ç. underwent surgery at the Ege University Plastic Surgery Department to repair the damage to her scalp. Prior to the operation, the doctors informed the applicants about the risks involved. Following the operation, the applicants' daughter caught an infection.

On 13 January 1992 the doctors carried out a second operation on C.Ç. following a deterioration of her health. However, her physical appearance did not improve following the operation.

On 24 November 1993 the applicants filed an action with the Izmir Civil Court of First Instance against the doctors who performed the operation and claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss sustained as a result of medical malpractice.

On 28 December 1993 the Izmir Court of First Instance issued a decision of non-jurisdiction on the ground that it was not competent to examine the acts of civil servants carried out in the exercise of their duties.

On 16 February 1994 the applicants filed an action with the Izmir Administrative Court against the Ege University Medical Department (hereinafter “the defendant”) and claimed compensation for medical malpractice.

On 8 March 1994 the Izmir Administrative Court conducted a preliminary examination of the case file.

On 6 April 1994 the defendant submitted its observations to the court.

On 8 July 1994 the applicants submitted their response.

On 27 January 1995 the Izmir Administrative Court held a hearing and gave an interim decision ordering the defendant to submit all the files concerning the operation performed on the applicants' daughter.

On 20 March 1995 the defendant submitted additional observations.

On 7 April 1995 the defendant submitted thirty-seven documents concerning the operation.

On 7 November 1995 the Izmir Administrative Court appointed three experts to provide a medical opinion on C.Ç's operation. They were given thirty days for submission of their report.

On 23 November 1995 the experts' report was submitted to the court.

On 18 March 1996 the Izmir Administrative Court, relying on the experts' conclusions, found that there was no indication of any negligence on the part of the Medical Department in the treatment given to C.Ç. The court therefore dismissed the applicants' claim for compensation.

On 5 September 1996 the applicants appealed against the judgment of the first-instance court.

On 4 October 1996 the defendant submitted its observations to the Administrative Court.

On 13 November 1996 the case file was sent to the Supreme Administrative Court together with the applicant's appeal and the defendant's response thereto.

On 28 October 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court, without holding a hearing, dismissed the applicants' appeal.

On 3 February 1999 the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court was served on the applicants.