Kemer Traffic-Accident Compensation Case: Constitutional Court Finds Excessive Delay
An English case note on Application No. 2014/150, concerning the length of compensation proceedings arising from a traffic accident in Kemer, Antalya.
The Constitutional Court’s decision in Application No. 2014/150 concerns the length of compensation proceedings following a traffic accident in Kemer, Antalya. The applicants said that the proceedings had remained unresolved for an unreasonable period and alleged a violation of the right to a fair trial.
The procedural history in outline
The compensation action was filed in 2000 after a traffic accident in Kemer in which relatives of the applicants died. The case moved between courts after decisions concerning jurisdiction and the proper judicial capacity in which the claim should be heard. A first-instance judgment was later given, the decision was quashed on appeal and the proceedings continued.
The Constitutional Court’s finding
The Court assessed the complexity of the dispute, the number of parties, the procedural history and the conduct of the parties and authorities. It found that the proceedings had lasted approximately fifteen years without a justification sufficient to make that period reasonable. The Court therefore found a violation of the applicants’ right to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 36 of the Constitution and awarded non-pecuniary compensation.
Why the decision matters — and its limits
The case illustrates that jurisdictional steps, transfers and lengthy procedural histories can be relevant to a reasonable-time assessment. It is not a decision calculating the compensation due for the traffic accident, allocating fault or determining the outcome of every underlying civil claim. The result cannot be applied mechanically to another case without comparing its dates, procedural steps and factual record.
Official decision
The source for this case note is the official Constitutional Court decision. The decision is published in Turkish; this page is an English editorial summary and is not a substitute for the official text or a certified translation.
This publication is general legal information. It is not legal advice, a case assessment, a promise of an outcome or an invitation to instruct the office. Deadlines, jurisdiction, evidence and available remedies depend on the facts and the law in force at the relevant time.