European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Sukru CETIN v Turkey - 10449/08 [2011] ECHR 1465 (13 September 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1465.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1465
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
10449/08
by Şükrü ÇETİN
against
Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub
Popović,
President,
András
Sajó,
Paulo
Pinto de Albuquerque,
judges,
and Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 January 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Şükrü Çetin, is a Turkish national who lives in Balıkesir. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. F. Demirkan, a lawyer practising in Bursa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized the applicant’s plot of land located in Balıkesir without expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicant subsequently lodged a civil action in order to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of his property.
On 31 May 2005 the Bandırma Magistrates’ Court awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of 1,134.08 Turkish liras. On 19 December 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the magistrates’ court judgment.
At the time when the application was lodged with the Court, the administration had still not paid the amount awarded by the magistrates’ court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the failure of the domestic authorities to execute the magistrates’ court’s judgment had amounted to a breach of his right to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
The Court reiterates that it has to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it, and is therefore obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III). Thus, even though the Government raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione personae in respect of the instant case, the Court nevertheless has to examine it of its own motion (see Kolaric-Kisur v. Croatia (dec.), no. 17129/05, 17 September 2009) .
The Court notes that the applicant introduced his application through his representative, Mr A. F. Demirkan, and has never been in contact with the Court directly. However, despite repeated requests, the last one of which was made on 1 July 2010 through registered post, he has failed to submit a legal authority form.
The Court considers it essential for representatives to demonstrate that they have received specific and explicit instructions from the alleged victim(s) within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention on whose behalf they purport to act. In the present case the file contains no document in which the applicant has indicated that he wished Mr A. F. Demirkan to lodge an application with the Court on his behalf. Consequently, in the circumstances of the case, the application must be rejected for being incompatible ratione personae, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009; K.M. and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 46086/07, 29 April 2010).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popovic Deputy Registrar President