AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 4520/02
by Hayrettin KARTAL
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 November 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr B.M. Zupančič, President,
Mr J. Hedigan,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David Thór Björgvinsson, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 December 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Hayrettin Kartal, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1989 the applicant signed an agreement with the General Directorate of Land Office attached to the Ministry of Finance. Accordingly, the Land Office undertook to allocate a plot of land to the applicant and the applicant agreed to pay a certain amount of money to the authorities. The Land Office however failed to make the transfer and therefore on 18 October 1995 paid back the applicant's money with interest.
Alleging that he had suffered financial loss, on 21 December 1994 the applicant brought compensation proceedings in the Istanbul Administrative Court against the Land Office. On 27 December 1995 the Istanbul Administrative Court declared lack of jurisdiction and sent the file to the Ankara Administrative Court. On 26 March 1997 the Ankara Administrative Court held that as the Land Office had paid the applicant's money back with interest, there was no need for the court to rule for pecuniary or non-pecuniary compensation. It accordingly rejected the applicant's compensation claims. The applicant appealed and on 18 November 1999 the Council of State, upholding the first-instance court's reasoning, rejected the applicant's request. The applicant further applied for rectification however his request was rejected by the Council of State on 27 June 2001.
The applicant complains in the first place about the excessive length of the proceedings, which lasted for almost six years and six months. In this respect, he invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The applicant further alleges under Article 6 of the Convention that the national courts have failed in the evaluation of facts and therefore breached his right to a fair trial
1. The applicant alleges that the length of the civil proceedings exceeded the reasonable time requirement in breach of Article 6.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant further argues under Article 6 of the Convention that the national authorities have failed in the interpretation of domestic law and evaluation of facts.
The Court recalls that it is not competent to examine applications concerning errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the competent national authorities.
There is further no evidence or basis on which to conclude that the domestic courts, in establishing the facts or interpreting the domestic law, acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Vincent Berger Boštjan
KARTAL v. TURKEY DECISION
KARTAL v. TURKEY DECISION