SECOND SECTION
CASE OF AYVAZ v. TÜRKİYE
(Application no. 23393/23)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
16 January 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ayvaz v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Davor Derenčinović, President,
 Gediminas Sagatys,
 Stéphane Pisani, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 May 2023. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 6. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 7. In the leading case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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. 9. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
10. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ümmühan Kaplan, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 6: violation