Events
in the case filed on 14/12/2016, the applicant requested that the immovable property left as a road during the cadastral works be registered in his own name according to the old land registry register. During the case, MB filed a petition for primary intervention and requested that the real estate be registered on its behalf. The court decided to accept the lawsuit filed by the applicant, to cancel the title deed and register the real estate on behalf of the applicant, to reject the lawsuit filed by the main participant.
Upon the request of the defendants for appeal, the decision was annulled and the file was sent back to the court. Court, which resumed the hearing, decided on 1/11/2022 to accept the case, cancel the title deed and register and register the real estate on behalf of the plaintiff, to offset the lawsuit filed by the main participant. it was not filed. The notification of the decision is ongoing.
The Allegations
Applicant claimed that his right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated due to the prolongation of the duration of the title deed cancellation and registration case.
The Court’s Assessment
Various measures have been taken by legislative, executive and judicial organs as well as international organizations to complete the trials within a reasonable time, which is one of the basic guarantees of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. and the Constitution. In this context, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decided to apply the pilot decision procedure in the Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey decision, stating that there is a structural problem in this regard and that there is no effective recourse. Upon this decision, Law No. 6384 authorized the Compensation Commission of the Ministry of Justice (Compensation Commission) to examine applications made to the ECHR for alleged violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time.
In addition, within the scope of these measures, the provisional 2 of the Law No. 6384. an arrangement has been made in the article “Application to the Commission regarding some individual applications pending before the Constitutional Court”. By the said provision, Provisional 2. it has been arranged that individual applications that are pending before the Constitutional Court as of 31/7/2018, when the article enters into force, can be examined by the Compensation Commission upon application to be made within three months. From the notification of the inadmissibility decision issued due to the fact that the legal remedies have not been exhausted.
The Constitutional Court emphasized that there is a structural problem regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time despite the amendments made, and amended Article 40 of the Constitution to eliminate this structural problem. according to the article, an effective way of application should be established for compensation for damages arising from violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time before an individual application (Nevriye Kuruç [GK], B. No: 2021/58970, 07.05.2022). The Constitutional Court has sent the decision to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey for the resolution of this constitutional question regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time and has fulfilled its constitutional obligation in this context. In addition, in the said decision, it was decided to apply the pilot decision procedure in order to eliminate the structural problem.
After the publication of the Nevriye Kuruç decision, the provisional 2 of the Law No. 6384. article 40 of the Law No. 7445. it has been changed with the article. With the amendment, the possibility of applying to the Compensation Commission has been introduced for applications pending before the Constitutional Court as of 03.09.2023. no mechanism has been introduced for applications to be made after 03.09.2023.
Therefore, the requirements of the pilot decision of the Constitutional Court on Nevriye Kuruç have not been fully fulfilled, and the possibility of applying to the Compensation Commission has been introduced only for applications pending before the Constitutional Court until a certain date. On the other hand, with the amendment, no administrative or judicial mechanism was established to be applied to the Constitutional Court before the application was filed, and applications under the claim that the right to trial was violated within a reasonable time continued to be filed directly to the Constitutional Court.
In the light of this information, it has been assessed that the meaning and importance of the pilot decision will disappear due to the fact that an administrative or judicial application method has not been established before applying to the Constitutional Court, and the Constitutional Court will continue to examine claims that the right to trial has been violated within a reasonable time. The fact that the Constitutional Court continues to examine the applications regarding the claim that the trial was not held within a reasonable time is of no importance for the protection and development of fundamental rights and freedoms after this stage. It is also clear that these decisions, which consist only of determining the amount of compensation, no longer contribute to the protection and development of human rights after more than 55,000 violation decisions.
As a result, considering the way the applications regarding the violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time are examined, the number of violation decisions and the principles set out in the pilot decision, it is clear that there are no longer any grounds left. It was decided that the Constitutional Court will continue to examine the applications made with the allegation of violation. As a requirement of the pilot decision, it has been concluded that these applications can be examined after an effective application method has been established for applications filed for alleged violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided to reject the application because there is no situation that requires continuing the examination of the application.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.