Behçet Taş v. Turkey (application no. 48888/09) (AİHS md. 6)

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, “her ne kadar Türkiye, yerel hukukunda buna yönelik bir hukuki çare getirmişse bile; aşırı uzun muameleler sebebiyle Türkiye aleyhine karar vermiştir.”

Behçet Taş v. Turkey kararı, somut olay yönünden, sekiz yıldan uzun süren muamelelerin aşırı uzunluğu sebebiyle Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 6. maddesinin ihlali tespitini içermektedir. Bu kararı orijinal yapansa, yerel hukuktaki alakalı hukuki çareye karşın, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin bu tür uyuşmazlıklar bakımından saklı tuttuğu inceleme yetkisini kullanmış olmasıdır.

Behçet Taş v. Turkey kararı, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/” adresinden erişilebilirdir.
 
Behçet Taş v. Turkey kararının basın duyurusu, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-5032483-6183751” adresinden erişilebilirdir.

Bu basın duyurusunun özeti, İngilizce haliyle, aşağıdaki gibidir:

The Court finds against Turkey on account of excessive length of proceedings despite the introduction of a remedy in domestic law
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Behçet Taş v. Turkey (application no. 48888/09) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the explosion of an antipersonnel mine, and the fairness and length of the compensation proceedings instituted by him. The Court declared the complaints alleging a violation of the right to life (Article 2) and the right to a fair hearing (Article 6 § 1) inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
However, as regards the allegedly excessive length of the proceedings (Article 6 § 1), the Court applied the method it had laid down in the Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey pilot judgment of 20 March 2012 (no. 2420/07). Following that judgment, a new remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings had been introduced in Turkey. However, the Court had reserved the right to pursue the examination of similar complaints of which the Government had already been given notice in other cases. Carrying out an examination of this kind in the present case, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings lasting more than eight years