CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 28 février 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1B106575 { height:34.05pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEC7CF00 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6C547D35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; line-height:150% } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5C1EE5DD { width:228.33pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 67493/01 by Doğan CANSOY against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28   February 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 May 1998, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case submitted by the Government and the applicant on 15   January   2002 and 8 November 2001 respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Doğan Cansoy, is a Turkish national, and he resides in Ankara. He is represented before the Court by   Mr Sarıkaya, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 1990, the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways ( Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü ), a state body responsible, inter alia , for motorway construction, expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land belonging to the applicant and this amount was paid to him when the expropriation took place. Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 28   June   1993 the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded him additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30 % per annum. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 16   December 1993 and the due amount was paid to the applicant on 23   January 1998. All the details as to the date of final decision by the Court of Cassation, the amount of additional compensation and the date and amount of payment are indicated in the table below.   DATE OF FINAL DECISION DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF CASASATION AS REGARDS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION (INTERESTS AND LEGAL COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED) (In Turkish liras)     DATE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT OF PAYMENT (INCLUDING STATUTORY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 30 % PER ANNUM AND COSTS) (in Turkish liras) 16.12.1993 29,790,000 23.01.1998 105.829.000 COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey had been very high, he had been paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following the expropriation of his land and the authorities had delayed in paying him the relevant amounts. THE LAW Following informal contacts between the applicant’s and the Government’s representatives, the Section Registrar was asked to assist the parties in reaching a solution to the matter. As a result, the Registrar addressed draft declarations to the parties. The Court received the following declaration from the Government. “I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay 2,600 (two thousand six hundred) United States dollars to Mr Doğan Cansoy with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no. 67493/01. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court pursuant to the Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This sum shall be paid in US dollars to a bank account named by the applicant, free of any taxes and charges that may be applicable. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case...” The Court received the following declaration from the representative of the applicant: “I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay the sum of 2,600 (two thousand six hundred) United States dollars covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Mr Doğan Cansoy with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application no. 67493/01 pending before the Court. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and the applicant have reached...” The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties within the meaning of Article 39 of the Convention. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols and considers that there is no reason which would justify the continuation of the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of the Court). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President