5.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1986, 1988, and 1997 respectively and they live in Edirne. 6.  The applicants are the wife and children of Nejat Kara who died in a traffic accident which occurred on 17 November 1998. He was working as an officer within the National Estates Division of the Governorship of Yalova. 7.  On 12 April 1999 the applicants applied to the Bursa Administrative Court and claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages based on the allegation that to employ someone who was normally hired for office work, as a driver was against the relevant legislation. 8.  On 9 February 2000 the Bursa Administrative Court decided that the case was not within the ambit of administrative judiciary. Upon that decision the applicant brought a civil case before the Yalova Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. 9.  On 10 March 2001 the Yalova Civil Court decided on the case and dismissed it. The applicants appealed that decision. 10.  On 9 May 2002 the 4th Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Yalova Civil Court on the ground that the conflict among the courts who dealt with the case was not a mere jurisdictional conflict within the same judiciary, it was between the two main judiciaries as civil and administrative, therefore the decision had to be appealed before the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes instead of the Court of Cassation. 11.  Despite that decision the Yalova Civil Court mistakenly sent the case again to the Court of Cassation. 12.  On 16 March 2004 the Court of Cassation noticed the mistake and sent the case to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes. 13.  The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes found that the case should be heard by the administrative judiciary. 14.  On 9 December 2004 the Bursa 1st Administrative Court, in a fully reasoned decision, dismissed the case. 15.  On 11 February 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal of the applicants. 16.  On 24 October 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request for rectification. 17.   The Supreme Administrative Court employed in its last two decisions standard texts of dismissal and did not explain the grounds of its decisions in detail.