{"id":3279,"date":"2019-05-10T17:44:29","date_gmt":"2019-05-10T17:44:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=3279"},"modified":"2021-09-22T11:34:08","modified_gmt":"2021-09-22T11:34:08","slug":"mutlu-and-others-v-turkey-european-court-of-human-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=3279","title":{"rendered":"MUTLU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"

SECOND SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n

Application no.16746\/10
\nEmine MUTLU against Turkey
\nand 26 other applications
\n(see list appended)<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20\u00a0November 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Ledi Bianku, President,
\n<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro,
\n<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ivana Jeli\u0107, judges,
\n<\/em>and Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/em><\/p>\n

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,<\/p>\n

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. A list of the applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, is set out in the appendix.<\/li>\n
  2. The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/li>\n
  3. The circumstances of the case<\/li>\n
  4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/li>\n
  5. The applicants are the heirs of drivers who had been involved in fatal accidents that had been caused through their own fault.<\/li>\n
  6. On different dates, the applicants initiated proceedings before the domestic courts against insurance companies, and requested compensation for the pain and suffering that they had to endure due to the death of their respective inheritors. At the material time, when determining the amount of compensation to be paid to the deceased drivers\u2019 inheritors, the Court of Cassation did not take into consideration the drivers\u2019 fault in the accidents.<\/li>\n
  7. As the cases were pending before the first instance courts, in 2008 the Court of Cassation changed its approach on similar cases and decided that no compensation should be awarded to the heirs of drivers who had been at fault in road accidents. It held that the heirs should not take advantage of the deceased drivers\u2019 fault and that the insurance companies had the right to raise the objections they would have submitted against the drivers at fault, had they survived the accidents.<\/li>\n
  8. Relying on the recent case-law of the Court of Cassation, the first instance courts dismissed the applicants\u2019 cases respectively as there was no dispute between the parties that the drivers had been at full fault in the accidents.<\/li>\n
  9. Some of the applicants appealed against the judgments. Some of them, taking into account the change in the case-law, considered that an appeal would be futile and did not appeal.<\/li>\n
  10. Following the introduction of the present cases, in 2012 the Court of Cassation once again revised its approach on the matter. In particular, when a first instance court insisted on its previous judgment to award compensation to the heirs of the driver who had been at fault in the road accident, the matter was transferred to the Joined Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation for unification of case-law. In a leading decision dated 22\u00a0February 2012, the Court of Cassation reassessed the situation and decided that even if the deceased drivers had been at full fault in the accidents, the plaintiffs should be awarded compensation by the insurance companies for the indirect suffering they had to endure due to the fatal accident.<\/li>\n
  11. The details of the applications may be found in the appendix.<\/li>\n
  12. Relevant domestic law and practice<\/li>\n
  13. According to Section 91 \u00a7 1 of Law no. 2918 (Code on Road Traffic), it is mandatory for the owners to insure their motorised vehicles. The owner and the driver of a vehicle are both responsible for any corporal and\/or pecuniary damage caused by the vehicle.<\/li>\n
  14. Until 2008, when deciding on the amount of compensation awarded to the heirs of a deceased driver, the Court of Cassation did not take into consideration whether the driver had been at fault in the accident. The court held the view that the damage suffered by the heirs was an indirect result of the accident and that the compensation claim of the heirs was not the result of inheritance rights. The court further held that the heirs no liability in the impugned accidents and could not be held responsible for the drivers\u2019 faults.<\/li>\n
  15. As of 2008 and until 2012, the Court of Cassation changed its approach on the matter and decided that the deceased drivers\u2019 fault had to be taken into consideration. It held that the heirs should not take advantage of the deceased drivers\u2019 fault and that the insurance companies had the right to raise the objections they would have submitted against the drivers at fault, had they survived the accidents.<\/li>\n
  16. Subsequently, in a leading decision dated 22 February 2012 the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation had the opportunity to clarify the case-law and decided to continue using the first approach. It held that the heirs of a deceased driver should be awarded compensation even though the accident had been caused through the driver\u2019s own fault.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    COMPLAINT<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention of a breach of the principle of legal certainty on account of the conflicting case\u2011law of the Court of Cassation. Some of the applicants also invoked Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the same complaint.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      THE LAW<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.<\/li>\n
      2. The applicants stated that as a result of the change in the case-law of the Court of Cassation, their compensation cases had been unjustly dismissed. In this regard, they invoked Article 6 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/li>\n
      3. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaints should be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing …\u201d<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. The Government argued in the first place that the applications should be declared inadmissible due to non-compliance with several admissibility rules, such as non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and the introduction of the cases after the six-month time-limit. As to the merits, the Government further submitted that there had not been profound and long standing differences in the Court of Cassation\u2019s approach to the material dispute before it so as to breach the principle of legal certainty. They further stated that the domestic law had provided an effective mechanism to ensure the consistency and uniformity of case-law.<\/li>\n
        2. The Court considers that it does not need to resolve the preliminary issues submitted by the Government, as the applications are, in any event, inadmissible for the reasons stated below.<\/li>\n
        3. The Court notes at the outset that it has in the past examined an identical case and found it inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded (see \u015een v. Turkey <\/em>(dec.) [Committee], no. 24537\/10, 14 February 2012).<\/li>\n
        4. The Court further reiterates that it is not its task to take the place of the domestic courts. It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation. It is not the Court\u2019s role or function to compare different decisions of national courts, even if given in apparently similar proceedings; it must respect the independence of those courts (see Sepe and others v. Italy<\/em> (dec.), no.\u00a036167\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 16-17, 16 September 2014).<\/li>\n
        5. The right to a fair trial must be interpreted in the light of the Preamble to the Convention, which declares the rule of law to be part of the common heritage of the Contracting States. One of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty. Conflicting decisions in similar cases heard in the same court which, in addition, is the court of last resort in the matter, may, in the absence of a mechanism which ensures consistency, breach that principle and thereby undermine public confidence in the judiciary, such confidence being one of the essential components of a State based on the rule of law (see Nejdet \u015eahin and Perihan \u015eahin v.\u00a0Turkey<\/em> [GC], no. 13279\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 55\u201157, 20 October 2011). Nevertheless, the requirements of legal certainty and the protection of the legitimate confidence of the public do not confer an acquired right to consistency of case-law (see Un\u00e9dic v. France<\/em>, no. 20153\/04 \u00a7 74, 18 December 2008). Case-law development is not, in itself, contrary to the proper administration of justice since a failure to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would risk hindering reform or improvement (see Atanasovski v.\u00a0\u201cthe Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia\u201d<\/em>, no. 36815\/03, \u00a7 38, 14\u00a0January 2010).<\/li>\n
        6. Furthermore individual petition to the Court cannot be used as a means of dealing with or eliminating conflicts of case-law that may arise in domestic law or as a review mechanism for rectifying inconsistencies in the decisions of the different domestic courts (Nejdet \u015eahin and Perihan \u015eahin<\/em>, cited above<\/em>, \u00a7 95).<\/li>\n
        7. The Court has been called upon to pronounce judgment on conflicting decisions that may be made within a single court of appeal (see Tudor Tudor v. Romania<\/em>, no. 21911\/03, 24 March 2009). In addition to the \u201cprofound and long standing\u201d nature of the divergences in issue, the legal uncertainty resulting from the inconsistency in the practice of the courts concerned and the lack of machinery for resolving the conflicting decisions were also considered to be in breach of the right to a fair trial (see Tudor Tudor<\/em>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 30-32).<\/li>\n
        8. In this regard the Court has reiterated on many occasions the importance of setting mechanisms in place to ensure consistency in court practice and uniformity of the courts\u2019 case-law (see Schwarzkopf and Taussik, v. the Czech Republic<\/em> (dec.), no. 42162\/02, 2 December 2008).<\/li>\n
        9. Turning to the facts of the present applications, the Court notes that initially when the applicants initiated proceedings before the respective first instance courts, they could have reasonably expected a finding in their favour, as the case-law at the time had entitled the heirs of a deceased driver to compensation \u2013even though the deceased driver had been fully at fault. However, when the Court of Cassation deviated from its previous case-law in 2008, it gave a detailed explanation as to why the case at hand had been decided contrary to the already existing case-law. The Court observes at this point that following the detailed decision of the Court of Cassation, in nine applications, the applicants did not file an appeal when their cases were dismissed by the first instance courts and in four applications they did not pursue their case (see the table in the annex). Subsequently in 2010, the same legal matter had to be reevaluated following a divergent decision delivered by a first instance court. The Joined Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation conducted a fresh examination of the legal problem to unify its case-law. In a leading judgment, the Court of Cassation decided to adopt its first approach and held that a deceased driver\u2019s heir should be entitled to compensation for the loss and suffering he had to endure as a result of the fatal accident, even though the driver had been at full fault.<\/li>\n
        10. The Court notes that this new leading judgment which was in the applicants\u2019 favour did not have any effect on their cases since those proceedings had already become final. Nevertheless, the domestic law and practice provided a mechanism to ensure the consistency of court practice and unification of case-law. The Court recalls once again that achieving consistency of the law may take time, and case-law development is not, in itself, contrary to the proper administration of justice since a failure to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would risk hindering reform or improvement (see Nejdet \u015eahin and Perihan \u015eahin<\/em>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a083 and\u00a058).<\/li>\n
        11. In the light of the foregoing, the present applications must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded under article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and\u00a04 of the Convention on the ground that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n

          Decides<\/em> to join the applications;<\/p>\n

          Declares<\/em> the applications inadmissible.<\/p>\n

          Done in English and notified in writing on 13 December 2018.<\/p>\n

          Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ledi Bianku
          \nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

          __________<\/p>\n

          APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
          \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

          No.<\/strong><\/td>\n

          		\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Application no.<\/strong><\/td>\n

          		\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Lodged on<\/strong><\/td>\n

          		Applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Place of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n

          		\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n

          		\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Case specific details<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

          1.<\/td>\n16746\/10<\/td>\n15\/03\/2010<\/td>\nEmine MUTLU<\/strong><\/p>\n

          01\/01\/1964<\/p>\n

          Ad\u0131yaman<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 4 December 2008 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s case. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 7\u00a0December 2009.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          2.<\/td>\n17430\/10<\/td>\n15\/03\/2010<\/td>\nT\u00fclin FIRAT<\/strong><\/p>\n

          11\/09\/1965<\/p>\n

          Ankara<\/p>\n

          Berna FIRAT<\/strong><\/p>\n

          26\/09\/1989<\/p>\n

          Ankara<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 6 November 2008 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicants\u2019 case. The applicants did not appeal against the judgment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          3.<\/td>\n17438\/10<\/td>\n15\/03\/2010<\/td>\nG\u00fcrc\u00fc \u00c7ITAK<\/strong><\/p>\n

          01\/01\/1967<\/p>\n

          Yozgat<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 16 July 2009 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s case. On 22\u00a0March 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          4.<\/td>\n17454\/10<\/td>\n16\/03\/2010<\/td>\n\u015eahinaz KEME\u00c7<\/strong><\/p>\n

          01\/01\/1964<\/p>\n

          Istanbul<\/p>\n

          Duygu KEME\u00c7<\/strong><\/p>\n

          02\/06\/1988<\/p>\n

          Istanbul<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 26 May 2008 the Beyo\u011flu Commercial Court awarded compensation to the applicants. On 14\u00a0December 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court. On 21 July 2010 the first instance court dismissed the case. No appeal was lodged against this judgment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          5.<\/td>\n17465\/10<\/td>\n15\/03\/2010<\/td>\nH\u00fcseyin ATLI<\/strong><\/p>\n

          11\/12\/1961<\/p>\n

          \u00c7ank\u0131r\u0131<\/p>\n

          Handan ATLI<\/strong><\/p>\n

          29\/01\/1978<\/p>\n

          \u00c7ank\u0131r\u0131<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 22 April 2009 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicants\u2019 case. On 23\u00a0September 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. Subsequently, relying on the change in case-law, the applicants\u2019 rectification request was accepted and the case file was resend to the first instance court for a fresh examination on 20 June 2013. According to the latest information in the file, the case is still pending before the first instance court.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          6.<\/td>\n17918\/10<\/td>\n10\/03\/2010<\/td>\nNurcan \u015eAH\u0130N<\/strong><\/p>\n

          09\/02\/1965<\/p>\n

          Ordu<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 3 October 2007 the Beyo\u011flu Commercial Court awarded compensation to the applicant. On 13 April 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court. On 17\u00a0February 2010 the first instance court dismissed the case and the no appeal was filed against this judgment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          7.<\/td>\n19692\/10<\/td>\n23\/03\/2010<\/td>\nSelvinaz SEV\u0130ND\u0130K<\/strong><\/p>\n

          04\/08\/1988<\/p>\n

          Samsun<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 24 July 2007 the Beyo\u011flu Commercial Court awarded compensation to the applicant. On 19\u00a0January 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. On 23 February 2010 the first instance court adhered to the decision of the Court of Cassation and dismissed the case. Subsequently the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant\u2019s appeal request.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          8.<\/td>\n19739\/10<\/td>\n22\/03\/2010<\/td>\n\u00c7etin TEZCAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

          06\/01\/1950<\/p>\n

          Mu\u011fla<\/p>\n

          Saadet TEZCAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

          18\/05\/1957<\/p>\n

          Mu\u011fla<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 12 February 2009 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicants\u2019 case. The appeal proceedings were pending at the time when the application was lodged.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          9.<\/td>\n19783\/10<\/td>\n19\/03\/2010<\/td>\nFatma ARTLI<\/strong><\/p>\n

          15\/11\/1980<\/p>\n

          Samsun<\/p>\n

          Hakan Cemal ARTLI<\/strong><\/p>\n

          15\/12\/1998<\/p>\n

          Samsun<\/p>\n

          Can ARTLI<\/strong><\/p>\n

          14\/06\/2004<\/p>\n

          Samsun<\/p>\n

          Cem ARTLI<\/strong><\/p>\n

          14\/06\/2004<\/p>\n

          Samsun<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 20 June 2007 the Ankara Commercial Court decided to award compensation to the applicants. On 4 June 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court. On 16\u00a0June 2010 the first instance court dismissed the applicants\u2019 case. No appeal was lodged against this judgment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          10.<\/td>\n19797\/10<\/td>\n22\/03\/2010<\/td>\nFadime \u0130\u011eS<\/strong>\u0130<\/strong>Z<\/strong><\/p>\n

          21\/10\/1965<\/p>\n

          Manisa<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nThe applicant initiated a compensation case before the Ankara Commercial Court but did not pursue her case. Consequently, on 1\u00a0June 2009 the first instance court decided to strike the case out.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          11.<\/td>\n19848\/10<\/td>\n19\/03\/2010<\/td>\nNurg\u00fcl KAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

          05\/02\/1970<\/p>\n

          Ankara<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 4 October 2007 the Ankara Commercial Court upheld the applicant\u2019s case and awarded compensation. On 17 October 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court. On 24 March 2011 the first instance court dismissed the applicant\u2019s case. The appeal request was also rejected on 31 May 2012.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          12.<\/td>\n19851\/10<\/td>\n19\/03\/2010<\/td>\nReyhan EROL<\/strong><\/p>\n

          01\/01\/1964<\/p>\n

          Istanbul<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 14 November 2007 the Ankara Commercial Court upheld the applicant\u2019s case and awarded compensation. On 8\u00a0June 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court. As the applicant did not pursue her case, on 26 July 2010 the case was struck out by the first instance court.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          13.<\/td>\n19854\/10<\/td>\n22\/03\/2010<\/td>\nRemziye KULO\u011eLU<\/strong><\/p>\n

          16\/08\/1967<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 13 February 2008 the Ankara Commercial Court upheld the applicant\u2019s case and awarded compensation. On 15\u00a0September 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court. As the applicant did not pursue her case, on 26 January 2010 the case was struck out by the first instance court.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          14.<\/td>\n19861\/10<\/td>\n22\/03\/2010<\/td>\nMelek K\u0130RMAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

          12\/01\/1966<\/p>\n

          Kocaeli<\/p>\n

          Reyhan K\u0130RMAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

          22\/01\/1992<\/p>\n

          Kocaeli<\/p>\n

          Ayhan K\u0130RMAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

          01\/07\/1994<\/p>\n

          Kocaeli<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 30 September 2010 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicants\u2019 case. No appeal was lodged against this judgment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          15.<\/td>\n19876\/10<\/td>\n22\/03\/2010<\/td>\nY\u0131lmaz G\u00dcREL<\/strong><\/p>\n

          19\/12\/1965<\/p>\n

          Tekirda\u011f<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 29 December 2008 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s case. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 14\u00a0December 2009.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          16.<\/td>\n20691\/10<\/td>\n26\/03\/2010<\/td>\nRecebiye DEM\u0130RTA\u015e<\/strong><\/p>\n

          30\/03\/1980<\/p>\n

          Bursa<\/p>\n

          Hilal DEM\u0130RTA\u015e<\/strong><\/p>\n

          19\/02\/1998<\/p>\n

          Bursa<\/p>\n

          Eslem DEM\u0130RTA\u015e<\/strong><\/p>\n

          23\/09\/2004<\/p>\n

          Bursa<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 13 December 2007 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicants\u2019 case. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 3\u00a0December 2009.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          17.<\/td>\n20735\/10<\/td>\n23\/03\/2010<\/td>\nBahar I\u015f\u0131k Y\u00dcCEL<\/strong><\/p>\n

          03\/08\/1978<\/p>\n

          Kayseri<\/p>\n

          Yal\u00e7\u0131n Y\u00dcCEL<\/strong><\/p>\n

          08\/04\/2004<\/p>\n

          Kayseri<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 15 July 2008 the Beyo\u011flu Commercial Court awarded compensation to the applicants. On 14\u00a0December 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. On 28 September 2010 the first instance court dismissed the case. No appeal was filed against this judgment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          18.<\/td>\n20736\/10<\/td>\n24\/03\/2010<\/td>\nNermin TANG\u00d6R<\/strong><\/p>\n

          13\/01\/1939<\/p>\n

          Edirne<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 4 February 2009 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s case. On 14\u00a0December 2009 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant\u2019s appeal request.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          19.<\/td>\n20739\/10<\/td>\n24\/03\/2010<\/td>\nNurten KIRCALI<\/strong><\/p>\n

          01\/05\/1972<\/p>\n

          K\u0131rklareli<\/p>\n

          Alp KIRCALI<\/strong><\/p>\n

          24\/05\/1992<\/p>\n

          K\u0131rklareli<\/p>\n

          Fikriye KIRCALI<\/strong><\/p>\n

          04\/03\/1995<\/p>\n

          K\u0131rklareli<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 9 October 2008 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s case. On 23\u00a0December 2010 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants\u2019 appeal request.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          20.<\/td>\n21998\/10<\/td>\n29\/03\/2010<\/td>\nG\u00fclay \u00c7\u00d6RD\u00dcK<\/strong><\/p>\n

          16\/05\/1972<\/p>\n

          \u00c7orum<\/p>\n

          Fatma \u00c7\u00d6RD\u00dcK<\/strong><\/p>\n

          06\/03\/1995<\/p>\n

          \u00c7orum<\/p>\n

          \u00c7a\u011fr\u0131 \u00c7\u00d6RD\u00dcK<\/strong><\/p>\n

          07\/11\/1992<\/p>\n

          \u0130zmir<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 15 November the Ankara Commercial Court awarded compensation to the applicants. On 8 June 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. On 11\u00a0March 2010 the first instance court dismissed the case. On 28 June 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          21.<\/td>\n22005\/10<\/td>\n29\/03\/2010<\/td>\nHatice PAMUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

          20\/11\/1957<\/p>\n

          Bursa<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 28 February 2008 the Ankara Commercial Court awarded compensation to the applicant. On 9\u00a0October 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. On 15 April 2010 the first instance court dismissed the case. No appeal was filed against this judgment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          22.<\/td>\n28637\/10<\/td>\n27\/04\/2010<\/td>\nAlime YAKICI<\/strong><\/p>\n

          21\/05\/1963<\/p>\n

          Konya<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nThe applicant initiated a compensation case before the Ankara Commercial Court but did not pursue her case. Consequently, on 11\u00a0February 2010 the first instance court decided to strike the case out.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          23.<\/td>\n28638\/10<\/td>\n27\/04\/2010<\/td>\nFatma DE\u011eERL\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n

          01\/02\/1950<\/p>\n

          Kayseri<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 5 March 2009 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s case. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 14\u00a0December 2009.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          24.<\/td>\n28640\/10<\/td>\n27\/04\/2010<\/td>\nAynur T\u00dcRKMEN<\/strong><\/p>\n

          05\/04\/1956<\/p>\n

          Mu\u011fla<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 6 November 2008 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s case. No appeal was lodged against this judgment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          25.<\/td>\n28642\/10<\/td>\n27\/04\/2010<\/td>\nHamide KALENDER<\/strong><\/p>\n

          25\/06\/1954<\/p>\n

          Ordu<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 18 September 2008 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s case. On 14\u00a0December 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          26.<\/td>\n26803\/11<\/td>\n14\/01\/2011<\/td>\nGurbet ETE<\/strong><\/p>\n

          09\/12\/1971<\/p>\n

          Siirt<\/p>\n

          Sinan ETE<\/strong><\/p>\n

          25\/07\/1991<\/p>\n

          Siirt<\/p>\n

          Rezan ETE<\/strong><\/p>\n

          01\/01\/1993<\/p>\n

          Mersin<\/p>\n

          Ferhat ETE<\/strong><\/p>\n

          08\/08\/1994<\/p>\n

          Mersin<\/p>\n

          Azat ETE<\/strong><\/p>\n

          10\/05\/1997<\/p>\n

          Siirt<\/p>\n

          Muhammet ETE<\/strong><\/p>\n

          08\/09\/2005<\/p>\n

          Mersin<\/p>\n

          Mustafa ETE<\/strong><\/p>\n

          08\/09\/2005<\/p>\n

          Mersin<\/td>\n

          		Abdullah ERKOL<\/td>\nOn 2 April 2009 the Mersin Commercial Court dismissed the applicants\u2019 case. On 15\u00a0April 2010 and 7\u00a0October 2010 the applicants\u2019 appeal and rectification requests were rejected respectively.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          27.<\/td>\n63054\/11<\/td>\n20\/07\/2011<\/td>\nFatma ZENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

          01\/01\/1962<\/p>\n

          Ad\u0131yaman<\/p>\n

          Zafer ZENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

          30\/08\/1990<\/p>\n

          Ad\u0131yaman<\/td>\n

          		Erhan BORA<\/td>\nOn 28 May 2009 the Ankara Commercial Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s case.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n