02 July 2013 Tuesday

Güher Ergun and Others, no. 2012/13, 2 July 2013

Violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time

The applicants put forth that their right to be tried within reasonable time had been violated due to the fact that the proceeding initiated in 2002 was still pending before the court of first instance. They therefore claimed compensation for their pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The Constitutional Court found a violation the above-mentioned right safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution and thus awarded compensation to the applicants. 

02 July 2013 Tuesday

Burak Döner, no. 2012/521, 2 July 2013

Violation of the right to personal liberty and security

The applicant was detained in 2007 for intentional murder, establishing an organization with the intent to commit crimes, plunder and damaging property for deriving benefits for the criminal organization. The criminal proceedings initiated against him were still pending. The Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to personal liberty and security on the ground that the applicant’s detention had exceeded the time prescribed by the relevant law.

16 May 2013 Thursday

Mehmet Mercan, no. 2013/2001, 16 May 2013

Inadmissibility of the application due to the statute of limitations

The applicant was convicted for murder, intentional attempt to murder and possession of unregistered firearm according to a decision dated 13 October 2011. His appeal was dismissed on 24 January 2013, on the ground that there was no legal and/or de facto circumstance underlying the objection. He alleged that his right to defense was restricted during the criminal proceedings against him. The Constitutional Court dismissed the application as it was not filed within thirty days after the exhaustion of available legal remedies as prescribed for individual applications.

16 May 2013 Thursday

Necmettin Doğru, no. 2013/1337, 16 May 2013

Inadmissibility of the application for incompetence ratione materiae

The applicant, a chief police officer in class (B), requested to be re-evaluated in class (A) based on a decision of the Constitutional Court. However, his request was rejected on the ground that the decision he referred to was not relevant. In this regard, he claimed that the principle of equality safeguarded by the Constitution had been violated. The Constitutional Court found the application inadmissible as the alleged violation did not concern a right and/or freedom safeguarded by the Constitution or by the ECHR.

16 April 2013 Tuesday

Nurdan Sesiz, no. 2012/317, 16 April 2013

Inadmissibility for incompetence ratione temporis

The applicant claimed that there had been violations of her right to a fair trial as well as her right to property following the partial annulment her land registry despite the decision rendered in favor of her testator in 1951.  The Constitutional Court found the application inadmissible as its competence ratione temporis began on the 23 September 2012 according to the Constitution.

26 March 2013 Tuesday

Ayşe Zıraman and Cennet Yeşilyurt, no. 2012/403, 26 March 2013

Inadmissibility for non-exhaustion of legal remedies

The applicants claimed that their right to legal remedies and their right to property had been violated due to the rejection of their request for annulment of the registration process of their property in the name of another person. Their request for rectification was still pending before the Court of Cassation’s relevant chamber. The Constitutional Court found the application inadmissible as the available legal remedies were not exhausted.

25 December 2012 Tuesday

Zafer ÖZTÜRK, no. 2012/51, 25 December 2012

Inadmissibility for incompetence ratione temporis

The applicant’s spouse lost her life during an operation carried out at a university hospital on 20 February 2001. His request for rectification of the decision of rejection of his claim for compensation was dismissed with no right of appeal on 14 June 2012. He complained about the fact that he could not obtain any result from ordinary legal remedies. The Constitutional Court found the application inadmissible as its competence ratione temporis began on 23 September 2012 according to the Constitution.

25 December 2012 Tuesday

Büğdüz Köyü Muhtarlığı (Mukhtar’s Office of the Village of Büğdüz), no. 2012/22, 25 December 2012

Inadmissibility for incompetence ratione personae

The applicant, a Mukhtar’s office, had been in a dispute for a long time with the neighbour village on a land property issue. The applicant alleged that the legal proceedings, that resulted against it, contained irregularities. The Constitutional Court found the application inadmissible for incompetence ratione personae as the applicant was a public legal entity that had no capacity to file an individual application according to the Constitution.

25 December 2012 Tuesday

Türk Pediatrik Onkoloji Grubu Derneği (Turkish Association of Pediatric Oncology Group), no. 2012/95, 25 December 2012

Inadmissibility due to incompetence ratione personae

The applicant Association requested the annulment of the decree, according to which the sub-departments of ‘pediatric hematology’ and ‘pediatric oncology’ in medical schools were joined under a single sub-department. The applicant put forth that the rights of its members had been violated due to the relevant legal regulation. The Constitutional Court found the application inadmissible for incompetence ratione personae as an individual application may only be lodged by those whose current and personal rights were directly affected due to the alleged act, action or negligence.