British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
Mehmet YILMAZ v. TURKEY - 12068/03 [2006] ECHR 983 (4 July 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2006/983.html
Cite as:
[2006] ECHR 983
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF Mehmet YILMAZ v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 12068/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4
July 2006
FINAL
04/10/2006
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mehmet Yılmaz v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr J.-P. Costa, President,
Mr I.
Cabral Barreto,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr M.
Ugrekhelidze,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Mrs E. Fura-Sandström,
Mr D.
Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 June 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 12068/03) against the Republic
of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the
Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Mehmet Yılmaz,
(“the applicant”) on 6 July 1998.
The
applicant was represented before the Court by Mr Selahattin Sarıkaya,
a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the
Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the
proceedings before the Court.
On
17 June 2003 the Court decided to communicate the application to the
Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Ankara.
5. On
an unspecified date in 1990, the General Directorate of National
Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the
applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway.
The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a
committee of experts, when the expropriation took place.
Following
the applicant’s request, on 26 December 1994 the Ankara Civil
Court awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the
statutory rate applicable.
On
22 January 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.
On
4 February 1998 the amount of 3,618,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was
paid to the applicant.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
The
relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the case of
Akkuş v. Turkey (judgment of 9 July 1997,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 IV, §§
13-16).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
The
applicant complained that the additional compensation for
expropriation, which he had only obtained from the authorities in
February 1998, had fallen in value, since the default interest
payable had not kept pace with the high rate of inflation in Turkey.
He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads in so far as
relevant as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.”
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.
B. Merits
The
Court has found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in a
number of cases that raise similar issues to those arising here (see
Akkuş, cited above, p. 1317, § 31).
Having
examined the facts and arguments presented by the Government, the
Court considers that there is nothing to warrant a departure from its
findings in the previous cases. It finds that the delay in paying the
additional compensation awarded by the domestic courts was
attributable to the expropriating authority and caused the owner to
sustain loss additional to that of the expropriated land. As a result
of that delay and the length of the proceedings as a whole, the Court
finds that the applicant has had to bear an individual and excessive
burden that has upset the fair balance that must be maintained
between the demands of the general interest and the protection of the
right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Consequently,
there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
In
his observations concerning just satisfaction, the applicant
reiterated his earlier claims contained in his application form and
sought compensation for pecuniary damage in the sum of 13,364 US
dollars (USD). He also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage
in the amount of TRL 2,000,000,000.
The
Government contested these amounts and asked the Court to award no
just satisfaction.
Using
the same method of calculation as in the Akkuş judgment
and having regard to the relevant economic data, the Court awards the
applicant the amount claimed in full, i.e., 11,055 euros (EUR) for
pecuniary damage.
The
Court considers that the finding of a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 constitutes in itself sufficient compensation for any
non pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed the amount of TRL 1,000,000,000 for the costs
and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
The
Government contested this amount and asked the Court to award no
compensation for costs and expenses.
Making
its own estimate based on the information available, the
Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR
500 under this head.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds that the finding of a violation
constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any
non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following sums, to be
converted into New Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement:
(i) EUR
11,055 (eleven thousand and fifty-five euros) in respect of pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR
500 (five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any taxes that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 July 2006, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé J.-P. Costa
Registrar President
