SECOND SECTION

CASE OF ÇELİK v. TÜRKİYE

(Application no. 19840/21)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

15 May 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Çelik v. Türkiye,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Gediminas Sagatys, President,
 Stéphane Pisani,
 Juha Lavapuro, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 24 April 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 30 March 2021.

2.  The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

3.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings, in particular as regards the proceedings before the Turkish Constitutional Court.

THE LAW

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

5.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

6.  The Court notes at the outset that the Constitutional Court proceedings do not in principle fall outside the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Süßmann v. Germany, 16 September 1996, §§ 39-42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑IV; Gast and Popp v. Germany, no. 29357/95, § 64, ECHR 2000-II; and Tričković v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, §§ 36-41, 12 June 2001). This is the case when the purpose of such proceedings is to determine whether there had been a breach of an applicant’s fundamental rights in the course of prior proceedings before ordinary courts where such proceedings concerned determination of one’s civil rights or obligations or of a criminal charge (see, for example, Keszeli v. Slovenia (no.2), no. 34200/06, § 22, 21 December 2010; Çevikel v. Turkey, no. 23121/15, § 41, 23 May 2017; and Siništaj v. Montenegro [Committee], no. 31529/15, § 24, 23 September 2021).

7.  In the present case, the applicant’s complaint before the Turkish Constitutional Court concerned the legal basis of his conviction and the fairness of the respective criminal proceedings against him. Therefore, Article 6 § 1 is applicable to the proceedings in question under its criminal head.

8.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).

9.  In the leading case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, among others, İshak Sağlam v. Turkey, no. 22963/08, §§ 34-38, 10 July 2018 and Ruşen Bayar v. Turkey, no. 25253/08, §§ 91-98, 19 February 2019).

10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, including the Government’s arguments related to the declaration of the state of emergency for almost two years from 21 July 2016 to 19 July 2018, the increased workload of the Turkish Constitutional Court, the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as a year-long adjournment of the proceedings awaiting the leading judgment, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length for more than eight years of the proceedings pending at the national level before one judicial instance (see, mutatis mutandis, Şahin Alpay v. Turkey, no. 16538/17, § 75, 20 March 2018; Bieliński v. Poland, no. 48762/19, § 44, 21 July 2022; Q and R v. Slovenia, no. 19938/20, § 80, 8 February 2022; and Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, § 195, 10 December 2019). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

11.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ümmühan Kaplan, cited above), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court;
3. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 May 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Gediminas Sagatys

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.