CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 avril 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s178DB0A7 { height:14.55pt } .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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sA1E1E78A { height:17.5pt } .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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B2CD0D6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s8BA86F1C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s15D92DFC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 42136/98 by Ali SOYLU against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30   April 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   K. Traja , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 June 1998, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ali Soylu, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr   A.G. Akyol, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The respondent Government were represented by Mr K. Gür, Deputy Director General for the Council of Europe and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 6 September 1990 the Ankara Municipality (Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi) expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicant in Yenimahalle, Ankara in order to build a residential complex. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land belonging to the applicant and compensation was paid to him. Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, the Ankara First Instance Court awarded him additional compensation assessed at TRL 521,280,000 plus interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, namely the rate applicable on 28 January 1997, the date of the court’s decision. The court decided that the running of the statutory rate of interest will start from 11 August 1995. On 7 July 1997 the Court of Cassation amended the amount of additional compensation as TRL 502,275,000 and upheld the decision of the first instance court. The Ankara Municipality’s appeal as to the rectification was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 27 October 1997. On 8 April 1997 an additional compensation of TRL 264,000,000 was paid to the applicant. In the meantime, the applicant initiated execution proceedings ( icra takibi) against the Municipality via the Istanbul Bailiff’s Office in order to enforce the payment of the additional compensation. The Ankara Municipality filed a request with the Ankara Execution Court for stay of execution procedure (icra takibinin durdurulması). In a judgement of 9 December 1997, the Ankara Execution Court rejected the Ankara Municipality’s request for stay of execution procedure. The applicant was paid an amount of TRL 594,776,500 on 9   December 1997. The remaining amount of TRL 37,459,000 was paid on 9 July 1998. The interest on the additional compensation was calculated at the statutory rate applicable between the date of the decision of the Court of Cassation in favour of the applicant and 31 December 1997, namely 30%. As regards the period after 1 January 1998 the interest was calculated at the then applicable rate, namely 50%. Between 1993 and 1999 the rate of inflation averaged 81.7% per annum. Details are indicated in the table below:   Date from which the statutory rate of interest (30%) began to run (the statutory rate of interest was increased to 50% from 1.1.1998) Date of final decision of Court of Cassation as regards additional compensation Amount of additional compensation (interests and legal costs are not included) (in Turkish Liras) Date and amount of payment awarded to him (in Turkish Liras)       11.08.1995       7.07.1997       502,275,000 8.04.1997 264,000,000   9.12.1997 594,776,500   9.07.1998 37,459,000 COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the rate of interest applied to the calculation of the additional compensation granted to him for the expropriation of his land was too low. He also complains about the delay in obtaining additional compensation. The applicant alleges that the authorities’ delay in paying him the additional compensation also violated his rights under Article 6 of the Convention. THE LAW On 9 January 2002 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative: “In my capacity as the representative of the applicant, Mr Ali Soylu, I have taken cognizance of the declaration of the Government of Turkey that they are prepared to make an ex gratia all-inclusive payment of 4,500 (four thousand five hundred) United States dollars (USD) with a view to concluding a friendly settlement of the case that originated in application no. 41987/98. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as legal costs and expenses, will be paid in accordance with the terms stipulated in the said declaration within three months after the notification of the Court’s decision ... Having duly consulted the applicant, I accept that offer and he, in consequence, waives all other claims against Turkey in respect of the matters that were at the origin of the application... This declaration is made within the scope of the friendly settlement which the Government and I, in agreement with the applicant, have reached.” On 1 March 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia to the applicant, Mr   Ali Soylu, an all-inclusive amount of 4,500 (four thousand five hundred) United States dollars (USD) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of his application registered under no. 42136/98. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as legal costs and expenses connected with the case, shall be free of any tax that may be applicable and be paid in United States dollars (USD) to a bank account named by the applicant and / or his duly authorised representative. This sum shall be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision delivered by the Court ... This payment will constitute the final settlement of the case ....” The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties. 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 Court). Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.     Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President