The right to trial within a reasonable time is not merely a technical matter concerning the swift conclusion of cases; it is a fundamental human right directly linked to access to justice, legal certainty, and the right to an effective remedy. Following the Keser Altuntaş decision of the Turkish Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM), the handling of violations of the right to trial within a reasonable time and certain compensation claims under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu, CMK 141) through the Compensation Commission within the Ministry of Justice has brought a new domestic application route to the forefront.
The main purpose of this arrangement was to ensure that applications that could be brought before the European Court of Human Rights (Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, AİHM) are remedied in domestic law. However, to the extent that the problem concerning trial within a reasonable time is structural in nature, it becomes difficult for a compensation-focused mechanism that comes into play only after the fact to bear this burden on its own.
What Does the Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time Protect?
The right to trial within a reasonable time guarantees that proceedings are concluded without unnecessary delays. This right may manifest differently in criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings; however, the common point is that the individual should not be left in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period.
When assessing whether proceedings have been completed within a reasonable time, the following factors are generally taken into account:
- The legal and factual complexity of the case,
- The conduct of the applicant or the parties during the proceedings,
- The manner in which the judicial authorities conducted the process,
- The importance of the dispute for the applicant.
In this framework, the issue is not only how many years it took for the file to be concluded. It is also important whether the judicial authorities managed the process effectively, whether unnecessary waiting periods were prevented, and whether the parties reached an outcome within a fair timeframe.
The Role of the Compensation Commission After Keser Altuntaş
Following the Keser Altuntaş decision of the AYM, as of 02.03.2024, the Ministry of Justice Compensation Commission gained a special position with respect to violations of the right to trial within a reasonable time and certain compensation claims under CMK 141. This remedy was designed to address applications in domestic law before they are brought directly before the AİHM.
The Compensation Commission is essentially an administrative mechanism envisaged to provide redress in domestic law in certain areas of violation where individual applications are concentrated. For such a mechanism to be regarded as effective, it is not enough for it to exist only on paper; it must be accessible, foreseeable, and capable of producing results within a reasonable time.
For this reason, the commission’s function is twofold:
- Providing individual redress: Offering appropriate compensation to the person due to a lengthy trial or the related compensation claim.
- Reducing the burden of international applications: Ensuring that disputes that could be brought before the AİHM are resolved in domestic law.
However, the second objective depends on the effective fulfillment of the first. If the domestic remedy is not effective, merely changing the direction of the application does not produce a genuine solution.
Why Is the Congestion of the Compensation Remedy a Serious Problem?
If the Compensation Commission also becomes congested, this may mean that the issue of trial within a reasonable time has merely been transferred to a new authority. Yet if the remedy established to address a violation itself turns into a lengthy, uncertain, and slow-moving process, new debates arise regarding the right to an effective remedy.
The main risk here is this: if the compensation remedy pursued for proceedings that were not concluded within a reasonable time is also not concluded within a reasonable time, the chain of seeking justice becomes longer. As a result, the individual may have to wait first in the original proceedings and then in the compensation process.
This situation is also important in terms of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies. In order for an applicant to be expected to exhaust a remedy, that remedy must be capable in practice of providing reasonable redress. Merely providing the opportunity to apply does not, in every case, mean that an effective legal remedy exists.
The Human Rights Action Plan and the Appearance of the Structural Problem
The structural nature of the issue of trial within a reasonable time was also discussed in the context of the Human Rights Action Plan announced in 2021. In the plan, it is seen that the Target Time in the Judiciary (Yargıda Hedef Süre) practice was highlighted in terms of trial within a reasonable time in line with the results of courthouse- and case-file-based analyses.
The target time approach may be a useful management tool for planning and monitoring proceedings. However, a target time does not, on its own, constitute a legal safeguard that prevents a rights violation. In order for proceedings to actually accelerate, many factors must be addressed together, such as the workload of courts, procedural economy, expert examination processes, notification procedures, and delays at the appeal and cassation stages.
For this reason, it is not sufficient to approach the problem of trial within a reasonable time solely through performance targets. The real issue is identifying the processes that cause delay and taking institutional measures that will eliminate those causes.
Points to Consider for Certain Claims Under CMK 141
CMK 141 is a provision that allows compensation to be claimed due to certain protective measures or judicial acts in the criminal procedure process. In this context, the association of certain compensation claims with the jurisdiction of the Compensation Commission has made procedural strategy more important for applicants.
Applicants must correctly determine the legal nature of the claim. An allegation of trial within a reasonable time and compensation claims under CMK 141 do not rest on the same legal basis; therefore, the chronology of events, the nature of the violation, and the redress sought must be clearly set out in the application.
In practice, the following points are particularly important:
- The legal ground on which the application is based must be clarified.
- The chronological course of the proceedings must be demonstrated with documents.
- The time limits and procedural requirements stipulated in the relevant legislation must be followed carefully.
- The remedies available against the commission’s decision must be assessed in light of the specific case file.
What Does This Mean in Practice?
The Compensation Commission was designed as an important domestic remedy for violations of the right to trial within a reasonable time. However, whether this remedy can truly be effective depends on its ability to conclude applications within a reasonable time and with sufficient reasoning.
The main practical conclusions are as follows:
- The problem of trial within a reasonable time is structural in nature; it cannot be resolved at its root merely by paying compensation.
- If the Compensation Commission does not operate effectively, swiftly, and foreseeably, it may turn into a new area of congestion.
- After Keser Altuntaş, application strategies should be structured more carefully in terms of the proper exhaustion of domestic remedies.
- In claims under CMK 141, legal characterization and the organization of documents are of critical importance for the outcome of the application.
- A lasting solution requires, beyond target time practices, the elimination of the structural causes that delay proceedings.