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 >>
SOPHIA ANDREOU v. TURKEY - 18360/91 [2010] ECHR 962 (22 June 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/962.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 962
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF SOPHIA ANDREOU v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 18360/91)
JUDGMENT
(just
satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
22
June 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 Sophia Andreou v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Işıl
Karakaş, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 June
2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 18360/91) 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, Mrs Sophia Andreou (“the
applicant”), on 7 June 1991.
In
a judgment delivered on 27 January 2009 (“the principal
judgment”), the Court held that the applicant's heirs (her
husband, her son and her daughter) had standing to continue the
present proceedings in her stead, dismissed various preliminary
objections raised by the Turkish Government and found continuing
violations of Article 8 of the Convention by reason of the complete
denial of the right of the applicant to respect for her home and 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 her property as well as any compensation for the
interference with her property rights (Sophia Andreou v. Turkey,
no. 18360/91, §§ 15, 16, 31 and 40 and points 1-4 of the
operative provisions, 27 January 2009).
Under
Article 41 of the Convention the applicant's heirs sought just
satisfaction of 664,921 Cypriot pounds (CYP –
approximately 1,136,084 euros (EUR)) for the deprivation of the
applicant's properties concerning the period between January 1987,
when the respondent Government accepted the right of individual
petition, and 31 December 2007. Two valuation reports, setting out
the basis of the applicant's loss, were appended to their
observations. Furthermore, the applicant's heirs claimed CYP 380,000
(approximately EUR 649,268) in respect of non-pecuniary damage
and approximately EUR 20,553 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., §§
54 and 57, and point 5 of the operative provisions).
On
13 July 2009 the Court invited the applicant's heirs 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's heirs and the Government each filed comments on this
matter.
On
4 September 2009, the applicant's heirs were invited to submit
written evidence that the properties at stake were still registered
in their name or to indicate and substantiate any transfer of
ownership which might have taken place.
On
30 September 2009 the applicant's heirs 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 on 29 September 2009 the
properties described in paragraph 16 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and
(h) below were registered in the name of Ioannou Sofia. The file
contains a certificate issued by the Republic of Cyprus on 24 July
1998 stating that “Sophia Andreou of Ayios Amvrosios, Kyrenia,
Identity Card number 284342, is the same person as Sophia Ioannou and
Sophia Andreou Ioannou”. No fresh certificate of affirmation of
ownership was provided for the property described in paragraph 16 (f)
below.
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 heirs' 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's heirs should address their claims to
the Immovable Property Commission (the “IPC”) instituted
by the “TRNC” Law 67/2005.
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's heirs were 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 16 of the principal judgment and point 2 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 heirs' 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
their just satisfaction claims of 29 September 1999, the applicant's
heirs requested CYP 196,962 (EUR 336,529) for pecuniary damage. They
relied on an expert's report assessing the value of their losses
which included the loss of annual rent collected or expected to be
collected from renting out the properties, 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 September 1999. The applicant's heirs did not claim
compensation for any purported expropriation since they were still
the legal owners of the properties. The valuation report contained a
description of Ayios Amvrosios village, where the applicant's
properties were located.
The
starting point of the valuation report was the rental value of each
property in 1974, subsequently adjusted upwards or downwards
according to the annual increase or decrease, in order to arrive at
the rent receivable in 1987. The properties in respect of which
pecuniary damages were claimed could be described as follows:
(a) Kyrenia,
Ayios Amvrosios, within the village, house with yard (ground level),
sheet/plan 13/14X, plot nos. 189/1/2/1, 189/3, area:
350 square metres (m²), share: whole;
(b) Kyrenia,
Ayios Amvrosios, Ayios Demetrianos, field with trees, sheet/plan
13/13, plot no. 193, area: 3,054 m², share: whole;
(c) Kyrenia,
Ayios Amvrosios, Moussas, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/21,
plot no. 207, area: 1,229 m², share: whole;
(d) Kyrenia,
Ayios Amvrosios, Tsioppi, garden/cultivated field, sheet/plan 13/23,
plot no. 115, area: 335 m², share: whole;
(e) Kyrenia,
Ayios Amvrosios, Bambatzera, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/27,
plot no. 226, area: 11,851 m², share: whole;
(f) Kyrenia,
Ayios Amvrosios, Vouno tis Mangous, field with trees,
sheet/plan 13/31, plot no. 32/1, area: 19,449 m², share:
whole;
(g) Kyrenia,
Ayios Amvrosios, Vouno tis Mangous, field with trees,
sheet/plan 13/31, plot no. 32/3, area: 13,186 m², share: ½;
(h) Kyrenia,
Ayios Amvrosios, Tzieheneu Teresi, field with olive trees, sheet/plan
13/19, plot no. 171, area: 9,121 m²; share: 1/6.
The
expert took into account the nature of the area under study and the
trends in rent increase (an average of 7% or 12% per annum) in the
unoccupied areas on the basis of the Consumer Price Index for rents
and housing of the Department of Statistics and Research of the
Government of Cyprus. Compound interest for delayed payment was
applied at a rate of 8% per annum. Thus, the total annual rent which
could have been obtained in 1974 was CYP 360 (approximately EUR 615)
for the property referred to in paragraph 16 (a) above and CYP 99.2
(approximately EUR 169) for the properties referred to in
paragraph 16 (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) above; the properties
referred to in paragraph 16 (e) and (h) above had a 1974 open-market
value of CYP 17,565 (approximately EUR 30,011).
On
25 January 2008, following a request from the Court for an update on
developments in the case, the applicant's heirs submitted updated
claims for just satisfaction, which were meant to cover the period of
loss of use of the properties from 1 January 1987 to 31 December
2007. They produced a revised valuation report which, on the basis of
the criteria adopted in the previous report, concluded that the sums
due for the loss of use were CYP 47,074 for the property
referred to in paragraph 16 (a) above, CYP 20,557 for the properties
referred to in paragraph 16 (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) above and CYP
597,290 for the properties referred to in paragraph 16 (e) and
(h) above. The total sum claimed by the applicant's heirs thus
amounted to CYP 664,921 (approximately EUR 1,136,084).
On
30 September 2009 the applicant's heirs produced a revised valuation
report, which was meant to cover the loss of use for the period
between 1 January 1987 and 31 December 2009. On the basis of the
criteria used in the previous reports, the expert appointed by the
applicant's heirs considered that the whole sum due to his clients
for pecuniary damage was EUR 1,311,889.
The
expert annexed to his report a judgment of the Kyrenia District
Court, given on 6 July 1973, concerning compensation in respect of
land acquisitions which had taken place in February 1970. It
transpired from this judgment that the values of land located in
Ayios Amvrosios at the relevant time were between CYP 560
(approximately EUR 956) and CYP 1,120 (approximately EUR 1,913) per
decare and that the land values had had a 20% annual increase. The
expert also submitted a synoptic table indicating the prices of ten
“comparable sales for properties in Kato Kyrenia and Ayios
Amvrosios”. According to this table, the 1974 value of one
square metre of building site was comprised between CYP 24.1
(approximately EUR 41) and CYP 28.7 (approximately EUR 49), while
fields could be sold for a price comprised between CYP 0.969
(approximately EUR 1.65) and CYP 1.28 (approximately EUR 2.18)
per square metre.
In
their just satisfaction claims of 29 September 1999, the applicant's
heirs further claimed CYP 380,000 (approximately EUR 649,268) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage. They stated that this sum had been
calculated on the basis of the sum awarded by the Court in the
Loizidou case ((just satisfaction), 28 July 1998, Reports
of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I), taking into account, however,
that the period of time for which the damage was claimed in the
instant case was longer and that there had also been a violation of
Article 8 of the Convention.
(b) The Government
The
Government filed comments on the applicant's heirs' updated claims
for just satisfaction on 30 June 2008, 15 October 2008 and 6 October
2009. They pointed out that the present application was part of a
cluster of similar cases raising a number of problematic issues. For
instance, some applicants had shared properties and it
had not been 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 further 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's heirs 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's heirs the option to sell the
properties to the State, thereby relinquishing title to and claims in
respect of them.
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 16 (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) above. The
other immovable properties referred to in the application were
possessed by refugees; they could not form the object of restitution
but could give entitlement to 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's heirs
applied to the IPC, the latter would have offered CYP 45,884.21
(approximately EUR 78,397) to compensate the loss of use and
CYP 48,872.90 (approximately EUR 83,504) for the value of
the properties. According to an expert appointed by the authorities
of the “TRNC”, the 1974 open-market value of all the
properties described in paragraph 16 above was CYP 7,986
(approximately EUR 13,644). Upon fulfilment of certain conditions,
the IPC could also have offered the applicant's heirs an exchange of
the properties with Turkish-Cypriot properties located in the south
of the island.
In
their comments of 6 October 2009 the Government noted that the values
of Greek-Cypriot properties in northern Cyprus had considerably
decreased since the delivery of the Loizidou judgment and of
the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 28 April 2009 in the
case of Apostolides v. Orams (Case C-42-/07).
The
Government further observed 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.
It
could therefore be said that the IPC had used the same criteria as
the Greek-Cypriots applicants. However, being in possession of the
land registers in which comparable sales had been recorded, it was
better placed to assess the 1974 market values of the properties.
Applicants had, in general, tended to exaggerate and inflate these
values. Their calculations were highly presumptive; for instance, the
percentage used for assessing the loss of income had frequently been
the same for buildings, fields, orchards and plots of land,
irrespective of their location, of the existence of electricity or
water supplies and of an access to a minor or major road. On the
contrary, the Turkish-Cypriot authorities had taken all these factors
into consideration; they had applied a higher percentage for
buildings in built-up areas than for vacant fields.
The
Government also insisted that, as it could not be excluded that the
properties at issue had been transferred within the legal system of
southern Cyprus, applicants should be required to provide search
certificates issued by the Greek-Cypriot Department of Lands and
Surveys. Failure to substantiate title to the properties at the
material time and at the time of the Court's judgment should be
considered as a failure to cooperate with the Court. No just
satisfaction should be awarded in respect to unsubstantiated or
dubious claims.
After
the delivery of the Court's principal judgment, the Turkish-Cypriot
authorities had invited the applicant to apply to the IPC in order to
reach an agreement on the matter of compensation. The applicant had
not replied to this invitation. This attitude was mainly due to
political reasons and to the pressures exerted by the Greek-Cypriot
authorities in order to discourage their citizens from applying to
the IPC. Misleading information had been given about its powers and
the Greek-Cypriots who had applied to it had been questioned by the
Office of the Attorney General. In 2006 the Greek-Cypriot media had
even revealed a “shame list” and published the names of
applicants to the IPC.
Finally,
the Government argued that the applicant's heirs' claim in respect of
non-pecuniary damage was excessive; regard should be had to the
Court's practice and to the fact that no damage could be claimed for
the period after the applicant's death.
2. The Court's assessment
The
Court recalls that in its principal judgment it has concluded that
there had been a continuing violation of the applicant's rights
guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 by virtue of the complete denial of the applicant's
rights with respect to her home and the peaceful enjoyment of her
properties in northern Cyprus (see paragraphs 40 and 31 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 her land and real
estate, the applicant had effectively lost all access and control as
well as all possibilities to use and enjoy her properties (see
paragraph 29 of the principal judgment). Her heirs are therefore
entitled to a measure of compensation in respect of losses directly
related to this violation of her rights as from the date of the
deposit of Turkey's declaration recognising the right of individual
petition under former Article 25 of the Convention, namely 22
January 1987, until the day of the applicant's death, namely 15
December 1993 (see paragraph 4 of the principal judgment; see also,
mutatis mutandis, 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).
In
connection with this, the Court notes that the applicant's heirs have
not introduced an autonomous claim concerning a potential violation
of the property rights which they might have acquired in their
quality of successors of Mrs Sophia Andreou, but have merely
successfully requested to pursue the application lodged by the
deceased (see paragraphs 14 and 15 of the principal judgment and
point 1 of its operative provisions). Under these circumstances, no
alleged pecuniary damage for loss of use can be awarded for the time
which has elapsed after the applicant's demise. It is also to be
noted that the documents produced by the applicant's heirs (see
paragraph 8 above) show that on 29 September 2009 the properties
described in paragraph 16 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (h) above
were still registered in the applicant's name. It is true that the
applicant's heirs have not submitted evidence showing the current
registered owner of the property described in paragraph 16 (f) above;
however, as the Court will assess the pecuniary damage suffered by
the applicant only until 15 December 1993, written proof of the
current ownership of this plot of land is not strictly necessary.
In
the opinion of the Court, the valuations furnished by the applicant's
heirs 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 v. Turkey (just satisfaction), cited above, §
31). Accordingly, in assessing the pecuniary damage sustained by the
applicant, the Court has, as far as appropriate, considered the
estimates provided by her heirs (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 27-28 above), while the applicant's heirs have
referred to the sale, in 1970, of comparable land. According to their
expert's assessment, this sale showed that at the relevant time the
market price of land located in Ayios Amvrosios was comprised between
EUR 956 and EUR 1,913 per decare, which is between EUR 0.956 and EUR
1.913 per square metre. Moreover, according to the synoptic table
produced by the expert, in 1974 fields in the same location could be
sold for a sum comprised between EUR 1.65 and 2.18 per square
metre (see paragraph 20 above). The parties have failed to produce
any data relevant to assessing the 1974 market price of buildings.
The
Court further observes that the applicant's heirs have 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 her heirs are on the high side (see,
mutatis mutandis, Demades (just satisfaction), cited
above, § 24). Moreover, the applicant's heirs have calculated
the loss of rents until the end of 2009, and not until 15 December
1993, date of the applicant's death (see paragraphs 32 and 33
above).
Finally,
the Court considers that an award should be made in respect of the
anguish and feelings of helplessness and frustration which, until her
death, the applicant must have experienced over the years in not
being able to use her properties as she saw fit and enjoy her home
(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 sum which, according to the Government, the IPC could have
offered the applicant in respect of loss of use (approximately
EUR 78,397 – see paragraph 25 above) constitutes a fair
basis for compensating the damage sustained by Mrs Sophia Andreou.
Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court decides to
award EUR 80,000
under the head of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage.
B. Costs and expenses
In
their just satisfaction claims of 29 September 1999, relying on bills
from their representative, the applicant's heirs sought CYP 10,160.62
(approximately EUR 17,360) for the costs and expenses incurred before
the Court. This sum included CYP 2,160 (approximately EUR 3,690) for
the cost of the expert report assessing the value of the properties.
On 7 June 2000 the applicant's heirs' representative declared that
his clients had received legal aid in the amount of 5,000 French
francs (approximately EUR 762) and that this sum should have been
deducted from his previous bill. In their updated claims for just
satisfaction of 25 January 2008, the applicant's heirs submitted
additional bills of costs for the new valuation report and for legal
fees amounting to EUR 1,955 and EUR 2,000 respectively.
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 valuation reports in view of the
continuing nature of the violations at stake were essential to enable
the Court to reach its decision regarding the issue of just
satisfaction (see Demades (just satisfaction), cited
above, § 34).
Although
the Court does not doubt that the fees claimed were actually
incurred, it considers the amount claimed for the costs and expenses
relating to the proceedings before it excessive. Taking into account
the sum received by the applicant's heirs by way of legal aid
(approximately EUR 762), it decides to award EUR 7,238
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
Dismisses the Government's request to
stay the examination of the applicant's heirs' claims for just
satisfaction;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant's heirs, 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
80,000 (eighty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,
in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
7,238 (seven thousand two hundred and thirty-eight euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicant's heirs, 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
heirs' claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 June 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy
Registrar President
