SECOND SECTION
CASE OF EREN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
(Applications nos. 29936/19 and 7 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
3 May 2022
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Eren and Others v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Egidijus Kūris, President,
 Pauliine Koskelo,
 Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications 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 the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) represented by Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice, co-Agent of the Republic of Turkey before the European Court of Human Rights;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 29 March 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applications concern the non-enforcement of domestic courts’ decisions despite the Compensation Commission’s findings of breach of the applicants’ right to a fair trial. 2. In 2006, 2007 and 2008 the applicants were awarded compensation for their receivables arising from labour agreements with the Alemdar Municipality (“the Municipality”) in three sets of civil proceedings before the Afşin Civil Court of First Instance. The details of the proceedings are set out in the appended table. 3. The compensation amounts awarded by the Afşin Civil Court of First Instance to the applicants were not paid except for the compensation awarded in the first set of proceedings brought by the applicants in application no. 3950/08. 4. On different dates in 2011 the applicants applied to the Court complaining of the non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions in their favour. 5. In 2013 the Court held that their applications were inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies due to the applicants’ failure to exhaust the Compensation Commission, a domestic remedy established under Law no. 6384 which provides redress for complaints concerning, inter alia, non‑enforcement of domestic remedies. 6. In 2014, the Compensation Commission awarded to the applicants non‑pecuniary damage for the excessive length of proceedings. It further transmitted its decision to the Municipality, requesting it to execute the judicial decisions in question. 7. In the same year, the applicants also applied to the Constitutional Court complaining about the Municipality’s failure to enforce the relevant judicial decisions despite the decision of the Compensation Commission. 8. In July 2018, as the applications were pending before the Constitutional Court, a provision empowering the Compensation Commission established under Law no. 6384 to deal with the applications pending before the Constitutional Court, concerning, inter alia, non-enforcement complaints were added to Law no. 6384. 9. In the same year the Constitutional Court found the applicants’ applications inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, namely the Compensation Commission. 10. On unspecified dates, some minor parts of the receivables were paid to some of the applicants.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation