SECOND SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF YAVUZDOĞAN v. TURKEY
 
(Application no. 8472/07)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
31 January 2012
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yavuzdoğan 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 10 January 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 8472/07) 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 Duran Yavuzdoğan (the applicant) on 12 February 2007. 2. On 25 May 2010 the Court was informed of his death on 20 May 2009 and that his successors, Ms Döndü Yavuzdoğan, Ms Ayşe Yavuzdoğan, Ms Tülay Arslan (Yavuzdoğan), Mr Erkan Yavuzdoğan, Ms Şenay Yavuzdoğan and Mr Seyit Yavuzdoğan, stated their wish to pursue the application. For practical reasons, Mr Duran Yavuzoğlu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although his successors are now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI, and also Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, 15 November 1996, § 3, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑V ). 3. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 4. On 4 September 2009 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1943 and lived in Eskişehir. 6. On 13 October 2000 the Turkish State Railways brought compensation proceedings against the applicant before the Eskişehir Civil Court of First Instance for the unlawful occupation of its property. Within the same proceedings the administration also requested that unlawful occupation of the building on the property to be stopped as well as the demolition of it. 7. On 21 June 2005 the court partially granted the administration's request and ordered the applicant to pay the plaintiff the principal amount of TRL 1,374,000,000[1] and plus TRL 787,205,000[2] as interest. It also decided that the building on the property be demolished. 8. On 22 February 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 21 June 2005. 9. On 5 October 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
10. 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...”
11. The Government contested that argument claiming that the impugned proceedings could not be considered to have been excessively long in view of the complexity of the case. They concluded therefore that there had been no delay in the proceedings that may be attributable to the State. 12. The Court notes that this complaint 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. 13. The period to be taken into consideration began on 13 October 2000 and ended on 5 October 2006. It has thus lasted approximately six years for two levels of jurisdiction. 14. 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 (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). OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
15. Without invoking any particular Article of the Convention, the applicant complained that his right to life, his right to liberty and security and the prohibition of discrimination had been breached on account of the proceedings brought against him. 16. In the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the above submissions by the applicant do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that these complaints must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation