Events
The applicant filed a lawsuit on 14/12/2016, requesting that the immovable property, which was left out of the survey as a road during the cadastral studies, be registered in his name according to the old title deed record. During the trial, M.The applicant filed a lawsuit on 14/12/2016, requesting that the immovable property, which was left out of the survey as a road during the cadastral studies, be registered in his name according to the old title deed record. Duhe applicant filed a lawsuit on 14/12/2016, requesting that the immovable property, which was left out of the survey as a road during the cadastral studies, be registered in his name according to the old title deed record. During the trial, M.B. The plaintiff filed a petition for intervention and requested that the immovable property be registered in his name. The court decided to accept the case filed by the applicant, to cancel the land registry record, to register the immovable property in the name of the plaintiff and to register it in the land registry, and to reject the case filed by the principal intervener. Upon the request of the defendants for appeal, the decision was lifted and it was decided to send the file to the court. The court, which resumed the trial, ruled on 1/11/2022 to accept the case, to cancel the land registry registration and to register the real estate in the land registry on behalf of the plaintiff, and to consider the case filed by the principal intervener as unopened. Notification of the decision is ongoing. on 1/11/2022 to accept the case, to cancel the land registry registration and to register the real estate in the land registry on behalf of the plaintiff, and to consider the case filed by the principal intervener as unopened. Notification of the decision is ongoing.
Claims
The applicant claimed that his right to a fair trial was violated due to the long duration of the title deed cancellation and registration case.
Court’s Assessment
Various measures have been taken by both international organizations and legislative, executive and judicial bodies 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.arious measures have been taken by both international organizations and legislative, executive and judicial bodies 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. Following this decision, the authority and duty to examine applications made to the ECtHR claiming violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time were given to the President of the Ministry of Justice Compensation Commission (Compensation Commission) by Law No. 6384.ollowing this decision, the authority and duty to examine applications made to the ECtHR claiming violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time were given to the President of the Ministry of Justice Compensation Commission (Compensation Commission) by Law No. 6384. In addition, within the scope of the mentioned measures, the provisional 2 of the Law No. 6384. with the article ”Application to the Commission on some individual applications submitted to the Constitutional Court” has been arranged. Provisional with the said provision 2. it has been arranged that individual applications that are pending at the Constitutional Court as of 31/7/2018, when the article entered into force, may be examined by the Compensation Commission upon an application to be made within three months from the notification of the inadmissibility decision issued due to the fact that the application routes have not been exhausted.
The Constitutional Court emphasized that there is a structural problem regarding the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time -despite the regulations made- and that the 40th article of the Constitution should be used to compensate for the damages that will arise due to the violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time in order to eliminate this structural problem.he Constitutional Court emphasized that there is a structural problem regarding the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time -despite the regulations made- and that the 40th article of the Constitution should be used to compensate for the damages that will arise due to the violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time in order to eliminate this structural problem. according to the article, an effective application method should be established before an individual application (Nevriye Kuruç [GK], B. No: 2021/58970, 5/7/2022). The Constitutional Court sent the decision to the Turkish Grand National Assembly for the solution of this constitutional issue regarding the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, and in this context fulfilled its constitutional obligation. In addition, the decision in question decided to apply the pilot decision procedure 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. changes have been made with the article.fter the publication of the Nevriye Kuruç decision, the provisional 2 of the Law No. 6384. article 40 of the Law No. 7445. changes have been made with the article. With the amendment, the possibility of applying to the Compensation Commission for applications that are pending before the Constitutional Court as of 9/3/2023 has been introduced. in terms of applications made after 9/3/2023, no mechanism has been introduced. Therefore, the requirement of the Nevriye Kuruç decision made by the Constitutional Court as a pilot decision has not been fully fulfilled, and only the possibility of applying to the Compensation Commission in terms of outstanding applications has been introduced until a certain date.herefore, the requirement of the Nevriye Kuruç decision made by the Constitutional Court as a pilot decision has not been fully fulfilled, and only the possibility of applying to the Compensation Commission in terms of outstanding applications has been introduced until a certain date. On the other hand, with the amendment, no administrative or judicial mechanism has been established that can be applied to the Constitutional Court before an application is made, and applications under the claim of violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time have continued to be made directly to the Constitutional Court.
In light of this information, it has been evaluated that the meaning and importance of the pilot decision will be eliminated if an administrative or judicial remedy is not created without an application to the Constitutional Court and if the claims of violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time are not examined by the Constitutional Court at first hand.n light of this information, it has been evaluated that the meaning and importance of the pilot decision will be eliminated if an administrative or judicial remedy is not created without an application to the Constitutional Court and if the claims of violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time are not examined by the Constitutional Court at first hand. The fact that the Constitutional Court continues to examine first-hand 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.
In conclusion, when the examination method in applications made with the allegation of violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, the number of violation decisions given and the principles stated in the pilot decision are taken into account, it is obvious that there is no reason that justifies continuing the examination of the applications made with the aforementioned violation allegation by the Constitutional Court.n conclusion, when the examination method in applications made with the allegation of violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, the number of violation decisions given and the principles stated in the pilot decision are taken into account, it is obvious that there is no reason that justifies continuing the examination of the applications made with the aforementioned violation allegation by the Constitutional Court. 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.
The Constitutional Court decided to dismiss the application on the grounds that there was no reason justifying the continuation of the examination.