The Constitutional Court recently considered an action where a proceeding was not held for four years and three months (2013/3689). In the circumstances, the court held that the applicant's constitutional right to receive a trial within a reasonable time had been violated. The Constitutional Court held the case's facts to not be complicated. Rather, the Constitutional Court held the trial was delayed due to the court's attitude.

The Constitutional Court considered the following factors:

  • Difficulty of settlement.
  • Qualification for trial.
  • Complexity of material facts.
  • Obstacles to evidence collection.
  • Number of parties.
  • The applicant's use of procedural rights.
  • The applicant's attitude and behavior.

The Constitutional Court unanimously held that the factors noted above had not caused the trial's delay, but rather the court's attitude had. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court held that the applicant's rights were violated and awarded the applicant's legal and attorney's fee be paid, as well as intangible compensation.

The Constitutional Court referred to principles and rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights ("Convention"), as well as judgments by the European Court of Human Rights ("ECHR") as supporting the right to a fair trial. The right is outlined in Turkish legislation by Article 36 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court held that the overall right to a fair trial includes the right to receive a trial within a reasonable time. The court also noted that Article 141 of the Constitution specifically states an objective for courts is completion of trials with the least expense and in the fastest manner.

Overall, the Constitutional Court held that disputes regarding civil rights and obligations must be settled within a reasonable time period. The court based the decision on ECHR jurisprudence, Article 6 of the Convention and Article 36 of the Constitution.

In particular, the Constitutional Court held that factors which must be considered when determining whether reasonable time has passed include the:

  • Case's complexity.
  • Number of parties.
  • Attitude of parties and authorities.
  • Interest of the applicant in relation to fast settlement of dispute.

When determining whether a reasonable time has elapsed, the Constitutional Court explained that the relevant period extends from the lawsuit's filing date through to the final date of the trial.

Please see this link for the full text of the Constitutional Court's decision (only available in Turkish).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.