25885/19;26026/19;26435/19;26485/19;26960/19;27370/19;27387/19;27390/19;27405/19;27409/19;27415/19;27433/19;27463/19;27468/19;27473/19;27483/19;27499/19;27505/19;27509/19;27519/19;27547/19;27551/19;27589/19;27602/19;27605/19;27613/19;27616/19;27619/19;27748/19;28624/19;28628/19;29545/19;29570/19;29894/19;29899/19;29907/19;29911/19;29924/19

SECOND SECTION CASE OF TETİK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Applications nos. 25885/19 and 37 others)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 15 March 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tetik 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 22 February 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 2008, 2009 and 2010 the applicants were awarded compensation for their receivables arising from labour agreements with the Yüksekova Municipality (“the Municipality”) in three sets of civil proceedings before the Yüksekova Civil Court of First Instance. The details of the proceedings are set out in Appendix 2. 3.  The compensation amounts awarded by the Yüksekova 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. 26026/19. 4.  On different dates in 2011, 2012 and 2013 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, 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. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 11.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  The applicants complain of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They rely expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 13.  The Government firstly argued that because some of the compensation amounts were partially paid to them, the applicants lost their victim status, at the very least in respect of the portions paid. 14.  The Government secondly claimed that the applications were abusive on account of the failure of the applicants to inform the Court of the said partial payments made by the domestic authorities. 15.  The Government thirdly maintained that the applications had been inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because the applicants failed to apply to the Compensation Commission, established by Law no. 6384, after the Constitutional Court had found their applications inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 16.  The Court observes that the applicants had already applied to the Compensation Commission before lodging their applications with the Constitutional Court. However, despite the Compensation Commission’s findings, the decisions of the Yüksekova Civil Court of First Instance awarding the applicants compensation had still not been fully enforced. 17.  Having examined all the material submitted to it and considering its case-law (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II), the Court considers that the applications are not inadmissible on any grounds and that the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour. 18.  There has therefore been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 19.  Each of the applicants claimed 200,000 euros (EUR), in respect of pecuniary damage, corresponding to the potential financial benefits they had been deprived of on account of the non-payment of the amounts awarded by the domestic courts. 20.  As regards non-pecuniary damage, each applicant claimed that he had suffered distress and hardship on account of the non-payment of the domestic judgment debts and requested EUR 50,000. 21.  The applicants further claimed EUR 500,000 in respect of costs and expenses. 22.  The Government requested the Court not to rule on just satisfaction because the Compensation Commission was now entitled to examine just satisfaction claims in applications where the Court has found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention but has not ruled on the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention or has decided to reserve the question (Kaynar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 21104/06 and 2 others, § 64-78, 7 May 2019). 23. The Court considers that the respondent Government should ensure that the domestic judgments in the appended table, are executed by the administration in full by closing the enforcement proceedings at the bailiff`s offices (İcra Müdürlükleri) which had been initiated by the applicants (Vlaho v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], no.15676/20, 10 December 2020). 24.  The Court further considers that the applicants must have suffered some non-pecuniary damage which cannot be sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation alone. Consequently, taking into account the circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the applicants have already been awarded compensation (see paragraph 10 above), and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards for each of the applications EUR 2 000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damages. 25.  According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award jointly to the applicants EUR 3 000 covering costs and expenses. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that the applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non‑enforcement of domestic decisions; Holds respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)  EUR 2 000 (two thousand euros) for each application, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii)  EUR 3 000 (three thousand euros) jointly to applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 March 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Hasan Bakırcı  Egidijus Kūris  Deputy Registrar President     Appendix 1 – List of cases   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Nationality 1. 25885/19 Tetik and Others v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Hasan TETİK Turkish Sürahi TETİK Turkish Binevş TETİK Turkish Yeliz TETİK Turkish Zozan TETİK Turkish Şehriban TETİK Turkish Fahrettin TETİK Turkish Siti ÖNER Turkish Selvi KOYU Turkish       Nurettin TETİK Turkish 2. 26026/19 Çiftçi and Others v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Nazime ÇİFTÇİ Turkish Feride ÇİFTÇİ Turkish Harun ÇİFTÇİ Turkish Abdullah ÇİFTÇİ Turkish Abidin ÇİFTÇİ Turkish Kamile ÇİFTÇİ YURĞUN Turkish Muhsin ÇİFTÇİ Turkish Cemile ÇİFTÇİ Turkish 3. 26435/19 Ertunç and Others v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Gülüzar ERTUNÇ Turkish Güler ERTUNÇ Turkish Nazlı ERTUNÇ HEZER Turkish Kadriye ERTUNÇ NUYAN Turkish Abdullah ERTUNÇ Turkish Abdulsettar ERTUNÇ Turkish 4. 26485/19 Kömür and Others v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Erdem KÖMÜR Turkish Nazime KÖMÜR Turkish Çiğdem KÖMÜR AYTONĞ Turkish Ümit KÖMÜR Turkish   Tuğba KÖMÜR Turkish İbrahim KÖMÜR Turkish 5. 26960/19 Şatır v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Arafat ŞATIR Turkish 6. 27370/19 Dayan v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Şükrü DAYAN Turkish 7. 27387/19 Engin v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Abdurrahman ENGİN Turkish 8. 27390/19 Basmacı v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Adil BASMACı Turkish 9. 27405/19 Han v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Ali HAN Turkish 10. 27409/19 Atak v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Mehmet ATAK Turkish 11. 27415/19 Tinar and Others v. Turkey 19/04/2019 Makbule TİNAR Turkish Tarık TİNAR Turkish   Kudbettin TİNAR Turkish Dilek TİNAR Turkish Nahide TİNAR Turkish Fazilet YAŞAR Turkish 12. 27433/19 Taş v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Halit TAŞ Turkish 13. 27463/19 Akdeniz v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Abdülhalik AKDENİZ Turkish 14. 27468/19 Noyan v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Cibrail NOYAN Turkish 15. 27473/19 Dikçe v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Abdulaziz DİKÇE Turkish 16. 27483/19 Temel v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Mehmet TEMEL Turkish 17. 27499/19 Atsız v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Muhyettin ATSIZ Turkish 18. 27505/19 Akdeniz v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Ömer AKDENİZ Turkish 19. 27509/19 Aykut v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Mehmet Emin AYKUT Turkish 20. 27519/19 Özer v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Mehmet ÖZER Turkish 21. 27547/19 Aksu v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Ramazan AKSU Turkish 22. 27551/19 Adar v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Fikret ADAR Turkish 23. 27589/19 Milas v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Sıddık MİLAS Turkish 24. 27602/19 Han v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Hamit HAN Turkish 25. 27605/19 Tokçu v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Abdulmecit TOKÇU Turkish 26. 27613/19 Dinler v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Ömer DİNLER Turkish 27. 27616/19 Bayhan v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Hamit BAYHAN Turkish 28. 27619/19 Yalçın v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Hamdullah YALÇIN Turkish 29. 27748/19 Yılmaz v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Hurşit YILMAZ Turkish 30. 28624/19 Tinar v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Hüseyin TİNAR Turkish 31. 28628/19 Dikçe v. Turkey 30/04/2019 İsmail DİKÇE Turkish 32. 29545/19 Ak v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Mehmet AK Turkish 33. 29570/19 Kaplan v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Ali KAPLAN Turkish 34. 29894/19 Süre v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Selim SÜRE Turkish 35. 29899/19 Ayhan v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Bedel AYHAN Turkish 36. 29907/19 Ergül v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Arafat ERGÜL Turkish 37. 29911/19 Kurt v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Cemal KURT Turkish 38. 29924/19 Kaya v. Turkey 30/04/2019 Ramazan KAYA Turkish Appendix 2 – Information on the domestic proceedings   Application Previous Application 1st Proceedings 2nd Proceedings 3rd Proceedings 25885/19 77829/11 32466/13 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 20/07/2010 × 26026/19 78272/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 13/09/2010 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 04/07/2010 26435/19 77831/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 × × 26485/19 77989/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 26960/19 78283/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 × 27370/19 508/12 32473/13 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 20/07/2010 × 27387/19 78759/11 32470/13 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 20/07/2010 27390/19 78728/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 13/09/2010 27405/19 55962/12 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 27409/19 77833/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 27415/19 509/12 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 × × 27433/19 77754/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 × × 27463/19 78774/11 33469/13 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 × 27468/19 77888/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 20/07/2010 27473/19 26029/12 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 × × 27483/19 77830/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 27499/19 77837/11 32460/13 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 20/07/2010 × 27505/19 77835/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 20/07/2010 27509/19 77834/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 20/07/2010 27519/19 77836/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 27547/19 511/12 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 × × 27551/19 77758/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 27589/19 513/12 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 27602/19 77825/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 27605/19 78764/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 27613/19 512/12 32471/13 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 13/09/2010 × 27616/19 77832/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 27619/19 77746/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 × 27748/19 77826/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 28624/19 77827/11 32467/13 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 × 28628/19 77828/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 × × 29545/19 77838/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 13/09/2010 29570/19 78651/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 20/07/2010 29894/19 515/12 32468/13 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 16/07/2010 × 29899/19 78229/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 20/07/2010 29907/19 78310/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 × × 29911/19 78066/11 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 13/09/2010 29924/19 510/12 Judgment: 28/09/2009 Final on: 02/04/2011 Judgment: 17/07/2008 Final on: 06/03/2009 Judgment: 21/05/2010 Final on: 13/09/2010