First and foremost, it should be noted that the right to a trial within a reasonable time refers to the right of natural persons and private law legal entities to have proceedings concluded within a reasonable time in respect of criminal charges brought against them, and equally, in civil proceedings, to obtain their rights and receivables within a reasonable time. It should be emphasised that the Constitutional Court evaluates the right to a trial within a reasonable time within the scope of Articles 36 and 141 of the Constitution. Article 36 provides that everyone has the right to a “fair trial”, whilst Article 141 contains a provision concerning “the conclusion of cases with the minimum of expense and as speedily as possible.”
Furthermore, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law” in the determination of their civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against them — thereby enshrining the right to a trial within a reasonable time.
It should also be emphasised that, when assessing the right to a trial within a reasonable time, the following factors are taken into consideration: the complexity of the proceedings, the number of instances through which the case has passed, the conduct of the parties and the relevant authorities during the proceedings, the difficulty in gathering evidence, whether the applicant has contributed significantly to the prolongation of the proceedings, and the nature of the interest in a swift conclusion. In this context, those whose right to a trial within a reasonable time has been violated are entitled to claim compensation for the pecuniary damage they have suffered, as well as for the non-pecuniary damage arising from the stress, distress, and suffering experienced during the proceedings. It should be emphasised, however, that pecuniary damage must be proven by concrete documentary evidence. As regards the right to non-pecuniary compensation, the basis for such a claim in criminal proceedings comprises the accused’s exposure to the threat of a criminal sanction, their inability to organise their personal and professional lives during that period, and the stress, suffering, and distress they have endured; whilst in civil proceedings, it comprises the delayed realisation of their rights and receivables and the stress, suffering, and distress caused thereby. Persons who consider that their rights have been violated due to the exceeding of a reasonable time during proceedings may apply directly to the Constitutional Court, as there is no other ordinary avenue of appeal available to them in this regard.
What Constitutes a Reasonable Time in Criminal Proceedings?
First and foremost, it should be noted that the Constitutional Court determines the commencement date of criminal proceedings against natural persons and private law legal entities as the date on which the relevant investigation began. The date on which criminal proceedings are concluded is defined as the date on which the investigation or prosecution ended and all ordinary avenues of appeal were exhausted. In this context, in pending cases, the end of the reasonable time is accepted as the date on which the Constitutional Court issues its decision, and whether the duration of the proceedings has exceeded a reasonable time is assessed with reference to that period. It should be emphasised that where proceedings before the courts of first instance have exceeded five years, the reasonable time is, as a rule, considered to have been exceeded. The complexity of the proceedings, the difficulty in gathering evidence, and in particular whether the applicant has contributed significantly to the prolongation of the proceedings are among the criteria taken into account when assessing whether a reasonable time has been exceeded.
To book an appointment with the expert lawyers at Mükyen Law Firm:
Book an Appointment
0216 784 43 20