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 >>
JOSEPHIDES v. TURKEY - 21887/93 [2010] ECHR 1650 (26 October 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1650.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 1650
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF JOSEPHIDES v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 21887/93)
JUDGMENT
(Just
satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
26 October
2010
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 Josephides v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Işıl
Karakaş,
judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 5 October 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 21887/93) 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 Cypriot national, Mr
Christos Josephides (“the applicant”), on 30
December 1992.
In
a judgment delivered on 22 September 2009 (“the principal
judgment”), the Court dismissed various preliminary objections
raised by the Turkish Government and found a continuing violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by virtue of the fact
that the applicant was denied access to and control, use and
enjoyment of his properties as well as any compensation for the
interference with his property rights. Furthermore, it found that it
was not necessary to examine the applicant's complaints under
Articles 1, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention (Josephides v. Turkey,
no. 21887/93, §§ 13, 25 and 28 and points 1-3 of
the operative provisions, 22 September 2009).
Under
Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction
of 1,550,000 Cypriot pounds (CYP –
approximately 2,648,330 euros (EUR)) for the deprivation of his
properties concerning the period between January 1987, when the
respondent Government accepted the right of individual petition, and
January 2008. A valuation report, setting out the basis of the
applicant's loss, was appended to his observations. Furthermore, the
applicant claimed approximately EUR 239,204 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and approximately EUR 9,048 for the costs
and expenses incurred before the Court.
Since
the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was
not ready for decision, the Court reserved it in whole and invited
the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months,
their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to
notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., §§
48 and 51, and point 4 of the operative provisions).
On
4 March 2010 the Court invited the applicant and the Government to
submit any materials which they considered relevant to assessing the
1974 market value of the properties concerned by the principal
judgment. The applicant was moreover invited to submit written
evidence that the properties at stake were still registered in his
name or to indicate and substantiate any transfer of ownership which
might have taken place.
The
applicant and the Government each filed observations on these
matters. On 21 May 2010 the applicant produced certificates of
ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties issued by the
Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus. It
transpires from these documents that in April 2010 the properties
described in paragraph 13 below were registered in the applicant's
name, with the exception of the property under paragraph 13 (j)
below, which was registered in the name of Mr Costas Josephides. The
applicant stated that the latter was his brother, to whom he had
transferred the plot of land at stake on 21 December 2005.
THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY ISSUE
In
a letter of 22 April 2010 the Government requested the Court to
decide that it was not necessary to continue the examination of the
applicant's just satisfaction claims. They invoked the principles
affirmed by the Grand Chamber in Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey
([GC] (Dec.), nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03,
10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04, 1 March 2010) and argued
that the applicant should address his claims to the Immovable
Property Commission (the “IPC”) instituted by the “TRNC”
Law 67/2005. They reiterated their position on the issue of
exhaustion of domestic remedies in the present case and in other
similar cases on 8 and 22 June 2010.
The
Court first observes that the Government's submissions were
unsolicited; they were received by the Registry long after the
expiration of the time-limit for filing comments on just satisfaction
and almost two months after the delivery of the Grand Chamber's
decision in Demopoulos. It could therefore be held that the
Government are estopped from raising the matter at this stage of the
proceedings.
In
any event, the Court cannot but reiterate its case-law according to
which objections based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised
after an application has been declared admissible cannot be taken
into account at the merits stage (see Demades v. Turkey (merits),
no. 16219/90, § 20, 31 July 2003, and Alexandrou
v. Turkey (merits), no. 16162/90, § 21, 20 January
2009) or at a later stage. This approach has not been modified by the
Grand Chamber, as the cases of Demopoulos and Others had not
been declared admissible when Law 67/2005 entered into force and when
Turkey objected that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
Furthermore,
the Court considers that its previous finding in the present case
that the applicant was not required to exhaust the remedy introduced
by Law 67/2005 constitutes res judicata. It recalls that after
the compensation mechanism before the IPC was introduced, the
Government raised an objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies. This objection was rejected in the principal judgment (see
paragraph 13 of the principal judgment and point 1 of its operative
provisions). The Government also unsuccessfully requested the
referral of the case to the Grand Chamber.
It
follows that the Government's request to stay the examination of the
applicant's claims for just satisfaction should be rejected. The
Court will therefore continue to examine the case under Article 41 of
the Convention.
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
1. The parties' submissions
(a) The applicant
In
his just satisfaction claims of 29 October 1999, the applicant
requested CYP 30,197 (approximately EUR 51,594) for pecuniary damage.
He relied on an expert's report assessing the value of his losses
which included the loss of annual rent collected or expected to be
collected from renting out his plots of land, plus interest from the
date on which such rents were due until the day of payment. The rent
claimed was for the period dating back to January 1987, when the
respondent Government accepted the right of individual petition,
until October 1999. The applicant did not claim compensation for any
purported expropriation since he was still the legal owner of the
properties. The evaluation report contained a description of the
applicant's plots of land in the Districts of Nicosia and Larnaca.
These plots of land were registered as follows (see paragraph 8 of
the principal judgment):
a) Nicosia/Piroi, plot no. 124, sheet/plan 31/26,
registration no. 4475, share: ½, area: 25,753 square metres
(m²);
(b) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 607, sheet/plan 31/46,
registration no. 31803, share: whole; area: 2,342 m²;
(c) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 670, sheet/plan 31/46,
registration no. 23140, share: whole; area: 1,673 m²;
(d) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 671, sheet/plan 31/46,
registration no. 25893, share: whole; area: 1,673 m²;
(e) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 635, sheet/plan 31/46,
registration no. 23158, share: whole; area: 2,676 m²;
(f) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 291, sheet/plan 31/54,
registration no. 25885, share: whole; area: 11,706 m²;
(g) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 339, sheet/plan 31/43,
registration no. 25887, share: whole; area: 6,680 m²;
(h) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 338, sheet/plan 31/43,
registration no. 23126, share: whole; area: 6,666 m²;
(i) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 82, sheet/plan 31/43,
registration no. 29092, share: whole; area: 5,017 m²;
(j) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 122, sheet/plan 31/36,
registration no. 23392, share: ½; area: 12,041 m²;
(k) Larnaca/Arsos, plot no. 59, sheet/plan 32/25,
registration no. 842, share: ½; area: 22,409 m².
The
plots described under (a) and (k) above belonged to the applicant's
father, who had transferred them to him on 10 April 1997 and 23 June
1995 respectively.
The
starting point of the valuation report was the rental value of the
applicant's plots of land in 1974, calculated on the basis of a
percentage (5 %) of the market value of the properties.
According to the expert, the total annual rent which could have been
obtained in 1974 was CYP 353 (approximately EUR 603). This sum was
subsequently adjusted upwards according to an annual rental increase
(varying from 5 % to 7 %), in order to arrive at the total
annual rent receivable in 1987 (CYP 853) and in 1999 (CYP 3,111). For
the plots described in paragraph 13 (a) and (k) above, the rent
receivable was calculated only from the dates (1997 and 1995
respectively) on which the applicant acquired ownership of the
fields. Compound interest for delayed payment was applied at a rate
of 8 % per annum.
The
applicant further requested CYP 160,000 (approximately EUR 273,376)
for the impossibility of developing the plot described in paragraph
13 (a) above, which was land which could be developed, located at
approximately 12 kilometres from Nicosia. The total sum requested in
1999 for pecuniary damage was thus CYP 190,197 (approximately
EUR 324,970).
On
11 January 2008, following a request from the Court for an update on
the developments of the case, the applicant submitted updated claims
for just satisfaction. He alleged that the time elapsed since 1999
had increased his losses and that the total sum due for pecuniary
damage was at least CYP 1,550,000 (approximately EUR 2,648,330).
On
21 May 2010 the applicant submitted updated claims for just
satisfaction, calculated on the basis of the estimates contained in
the valuation report produced in 1999 (see paragraphs 13-14 above).
He alleged that, taking into account that one of the properties had
been transferred to his brother in 2005 (see paragraph 6 above), the
whole sum due for loss of use for the period 1987-2010 was EUR
154,000. The applicant moreover considered that if the Turkish forces
had not invaded northern Cyprus, he could have developed his plot
described under paragraph 13 (a) above into 16 building sites; on the
basis of the sale offers currently published in the Cyprus press, it
could be assumed that each site would had have, in 2010, a price of
EUR 300,000. It followed that their overall value would have been
EUR 4,800,000, from which a developing cost of EUR 350,000
should be deducted. The net benefit would therefore have been
EUR 4,450,000. As he had a ½ share in the plot at issue,
the applicant requested the Court to grant him at least half of this
sum (EUR 2,225,000), to which the amount for loss of use (EUR
154,000) should be added. The applicant's total claim for pecuniary
damage was thus EUR 2,379,000.
The
applicant also specified that in 1977 he had acquired in public
auction a plot of land of 5,352 square metres, located in the
vicinity of the buffer zone, for CYP 480 (approximately EUR 820). He
underlined that this price was much lower than the 1974 market value,
as the Turkish invasion had provoked a deflation of the prices of
land. The applicant also produced copies of advertisings published in
the Cypriot press in March and May 2010 and alleged that it
transpired from these documents that the current prices of land were
the following: between EUR 8,000 and EUR 15,000 per decare for
plots located in the Turkish-occupied areas; between EUR 20,000 and
EUR 50,000 per decare for agricultural land with trees and irrigation
facilities; between EUR 200,000 and EUR 400,000 per decare for plots
which could be developed into building sites.
In
his just satisfaction claims of 29 October 1999, the applicant
further claimed CYP 140,000 (approximately EUR 239,204) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage. In particular, he requested CYP
5,000 per year for the period 1987-1991, CYP 10,000 per year for the
period 1992-1999 plus the additional sum of CYP 35,000. In his
updated claims for just satisfaction of 21 May 2010, he raised his
claim up to EUR 365,500 (EUR 8,500 for each of the years between 1987
and 1991 and EUR 17,000 for each of the years between 1992 and 2010).
(b) The Government
The
Government filed comments on the applicant's updated claims for just
satisfaction on 30 June 2008, 15 October 2008 and 22 June 2010. They
pointed out that the present application was part of a cluster of
similar cases raising a number of problematic issues and noted
that some applicants had shared properties and that it was not proved
that their co-owners had agreed to the partition of the possessions.
Nor, when claiming damages based on the assumption that the
properties had been rented after 1974, had the applicants shown that
the rights of the said co-owners under domestic law had been
respected.
The
Government submitted that as an annual increase of the value of the
properties had been applied, it would be unfair to add compound
interest for delayed payment, and that Turkey had recognised the
jurisdiction of the Court on 21 January 1990, and not in January
1987. In any event, the alleged 1974 market value of the properties
was exorbitant, highly excessive and speculative; it was not based on
any real data with which to make a comparison and made insufficient
allowance for the volatility of the property market and its
susceptibility to influences both domestic and international. The
report submitted by the applicant had instead proceeded on the
assumption that the property market would have continued to flourish
with sustained growth during the whole period under consideration.
The
Government produced a valuation report prepared by the
Turkish-Cypriot authorities, which they considered to be based on a
“realistic assessment of the 1974 market values, having regard
to the relevant land records and comparative sales in the areas where
the properties [were] situated”. This report contained two
proposals, assessing, respectively, the sum due for the loss of use
of the properties and their present value. The second proposal was
made in order to give the applicant the option to sell the properties
to the State, thereby relinquishing title to and claims in respect of
it.
The
report prepared by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities specified that it
would be possible to envisage, either immediately or after the
resolution of the Cyprus problem, restitution of the properties
described in paragraph 13 above. In case the conditions for
restitution were not fulfilled, the applicant could claim financial
compensation, to be calculated on the basis of the loss of income (by
applying a 5% rent on the 1974 market values) and increase in value
of the properties between 1974 and the date of payment. Had the
applicant applied to the IPC, the latter would have offered CYP
6,837.24 (approximately EUR 11,682) to compensate the loss of use and
CYP 7,282.59 (approximately EUR 12,443) for the value of the
properties. According to an expert appointed by the authorities of
the “TRNC”, the 1974 open-market value of the applicant's
properties was the following:
– plot of land described in paragraph 13 (b) above:
CYP 80 (approximately EUR 136);
– plot of land described in paragraph 13 (c) above:
CYP 50 (approximately EUR 85);
– plot of land described in paragraph 13 (d) above:
CYP 50 (approximately EUR 85);
– plot of land described in paragraph 13 (e) above:
CYP 80 (approximately EUR 136);
– plot of land described in paragraph 13 (f) above:
CYP 350 (approximately EUR 598);
– plot of land described in paragraph 13 (g) above:
CYP 200 (approximately EUR 341);
– plot of land described in paragraph 13 (h) above:
CYP 200 (approximately EUR 341);
– plot of land described in paragraph 13 (j) above:
CYP 180 (approximately EUR 307).
No
estimate was given for the plots described in paragraph 13 (a), (i)
and (k) above. The IPC thus took into account only eight of the
eleven plots of land owned by the applicant.
Upon
fulfilment of certain conditions, the IPC could also have offered the
applicant exchange of his properties with Turkish-Cypriot properties
located in the south of the island.
In
their comments of 22 June 2010, the Government recalled that in the
case of Demopoulos and Others (cited above) the Grand Chamber
had found that the IPC was an adequate domestic remedy for those
claiming a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Notwithstanding
the adoption of a judgment on the merits, it would still be open to
the applicant to apply to the IPC, which would calculate the current
value and the 1974 value of the properties “in a credential way
based on actual data”. On 27 May 2010 the IPC had sent a letter
to the applicant, inviting him to introduce an application before it.
The
Government recalled that under Law No. 67/2005, the following means
of redress were available: a) restitution; b) compensation;
c) exchange. The relevant provisions of the law at issue are
described in Demopoulos and Others (cited above, §§
35-37).
The
Government further noted that in making its assessment as regarded
compensation for the loss of use, the IPC had collected data from the
Department of Lands and Surveys on the 1973-1974 purchase prices for
comparable properties. It had also examined the development of
interest rates of the Cyprus Central Bank. The loss of income was
then calculated by assuming that the obtainable rent would have been
5 % of the value of the properties; this last value had been
modified every year on the basis of the land market value index.
Cyprus Central Bank interest rates had been applied on the sums due
since 1974.
Being
in possession of the land registers, the
Turkish-Cypriot
authorities were in a better position than the applicants and the
Greek-Cypriot authorities to assess the market values of the
properties in a realistic and reliable manner. The applicants had put
forward exaggerated claims and had tended to inflate the 1974 values
of their possessions. The Government therefore requested the
Court to rule on compensation on the basis of the calculations made
by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities, which were “credential and
objective in every aspect”.
The
report prepared by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities confirmed that it
would be possible to envisage restitution of the properties described
in paragraph 13 above. Had the applicant applied to the IPC, the
latter would have increased its offer up to CYP 7,820
(approximately EUR 13,361) to compensate the loss of use and up
to CYP 7,971.81 (approximately EUR 13,620) for the value of the
properties. The expert appointed by the authorities of the “TRNC”
also confirmed the 1974 open-market values of the applicant's
properties as indicated in paragraph 23 above.
Finally,
the Government considered that the amount claimed in respect of
non-pecuniary damage was excessive and unrealistic; given the
existence of an effective domestic remedy, the Court should keep the
award for such damage to a minimum.
2. The Court's assessment
The
Court recalls that it has concluded that there had been a continuing
violation of the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 by reason of the complete denial of the right of the
applicant to the peaceful enjoyment of his properties in northern
Cyprus (see paragraph 25 of the principal judgment). Furthermore, its
finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was based on
the fact that, as a consequence of being continuously denied access
to his land since 1974, the applicant had effectively lost all access
and control as well as all possibilities to use and enjoy his
properties (see paragraph 23 of the principal judgment). He is
therefore entitled to a measure of compensation in respect of losses
directly related to this violation of his rights as from the date of
deposit of Turkey's declaration recognising the right of individual
petition under former Article 25 of the Convention, namely 22
January 1987, until the present time (see Cankoçak v.
Turkey, nos. 25182/94 and 26956/95, § 26, 20 February
2001, and Demades v. Turkey (just satisfaction),
no. 16219/90, § 21, 22 April 2008). However, for the plots
described in paragraph 13 (a) and (k) above the applicant's
entitlement to compensation should start from the date on which he
acquired ownership of the land at stake, namely from 10 April 1997
and 23 June 1995 (see paragraph 9 of the principal judgment and
paragraph 13 above); for the plot described 13 (j) above the period
to be taken into consideration ends on 21 December 2005, on
which date the applicant transferred this land to his brother (see
paragraph 6 above).
In
connection with this, the Court observes that the affirmations of
ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties produced by the
applicant show that in April 2010 he was still the owner of ten of
the properties described in paragraph 13 above (see paragraph 6
above).
In
the opinion of the Court, the valuations furnished by the applicant
involve a significant degree of speculation and make insufficient
allowance for the volatility of the property market and its
susceptibility to influences both domestic and international (see
Loizidou (just satisfaction), 28 July 1998, § 31, Reports
of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV). An even higher degree of
speculation is involved in assessing the profits that the applicant
could have obtained from developing into building sites the land
described in paragraph 13 (a) above (see paragraphs 15 and 17 above).
Accordingly, in assessing the pecuniary damage sustained by the
applicant, the Court has, as far as appropriate, considered the
estimates provided by him (see Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (just
satisfaction), no. 46347/99, § 41, 7 December
2006). In general it considers as reasonable the approach to
assessing the loss suffered by the applicant with reference to the
annual ground rent, calculated as a percentage of the market value of
the properties, that could have been earned during the relevant
period (Loizidou (just satisfaction), cited above, §
33, and Demades (just satisfaction), cited above, § 23).
Furthermore, the Court has taken into account the uncertainties,
inherent in any attempt to quantify the real losses incurred by the
applicant (see Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23
March 1995, § 102, Series A no. 310, and (merits)
18 December 1996, § 32, Reports 1996-VI).
The
Court notes that notwithstanding its request to submit material
relevant to assessing the 1974 market value of the applicant's
properties, the parties have produced few elements in this respect.
The Government have relied on the accuracy of the IPC's
calculations (see paragraphs 22 and 27-28 above), while the applicant
has referred to the sale offers published in 2010 in the Cyprus press
and to the acquisition of agricultural land in a public action in
1977 (see paragraph 18 above).
The
Court further observes that the applicant submitted an additional
claim in the form of annual compound interest in respect of the
losses on account of the delay in the payment of the sums due. While
the Court considers that a certain amount of compensation in the form
of statutory interest should be awarded to the applicant, it finds
that the rates applied by him are on the high side (see, mutatis
mutandis, Demades (just satisfaction), cited above, §
24).
Finally,
the Court is of the opinion that an award should be made in respect
of the anguish and feelings of helplessness and frustration which the
applicant must have experienced over the years in not being able to
use his properties as he saw fit (see Demades (just
satisfaction), cited above, § 29, and Xenides-Arestis
(just satisfaction), cited above, § 47).
Having
regard to the above considerations, the Court is of the opinion that
the sums claimed by the applicant in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage (respectively EUR 2,379,000 and EUR 365,500
– see paragraphs 17 and 19 above) are manifestly
excessive. It notes that no construction had been built on the
applicant's plots of land and that the valuation report submitted in
1999 had concluded that the total sum due to the applicant for
pecuniary damage was EUR 51,594 (see paragraph 13 above). At the
same time, the amount which the “TRNC” authorities could
have offered the applicant in respect of loss of use (approximately
EUR 13,361 – see paragraph 29 above) does not seem to take
into due account the number of plots of land owned by the applicant
and described in paragraph 13 above, which had a total area of
68,534 square
metres. Indeed, as indicated in paragraph 23 above, the IPC
calculations took into account only eight of the eleven fields owned
by the applicant. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the
Court decides to award the applicant EUR 120,000 in respect of
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
In
his just satisfaction claims of 29 October 1999, the applicant, who
is a lawyer and presented his own case before the Court (see
paragraph 2 of the principal judgment), sought CYP 5,296
(approximately EUR 9,048) for the costs and expenses incurred before
the Convention organs. This sum included CYP 1,296 (approximately EUR
2,214) for the costs of the expert report assessing the value of his
properties. In his updated claims of 21 May 2010 the applicant raised
his claim for costs and expenses up to EUR 20,000.
The
Government did not comment on this point.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to
quantum (see, for
example, Iatridis v. Greece (just
satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-XI).
The
Court notes that the case involved perusing a certain amount
of factual and documentary evidence and required a fair degree of
research and preparation. In particular, the
costs associated with producing a valuation report in view of the
continuing nature of the violation at stake were essential for
enabling the Court to reach its decision regarding the issue of just
satisfaction (see Demades (just satisfaction), cited
above, § 34). However, it should be
kept in mind that the applicant presented his own case before the
Court.
In
the light of the above, the Court considers the amount claimed for
the costs and expenses relating to the proceedings before it
excessive and decides to award the total sum of EUR 2,000.
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
Dismisses the Government's request to
stay the examination of the applicant's claims for just satisfaction;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts:
(i) EUR
120,000 (one hundred and twenty thousand euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR
2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to
the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 26 October 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
