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 } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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. 44253/98 by Mehmet KÖKLÜCAN 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 8 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 Mehmet Köklücan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Nevşehir. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Sarıkaya, 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 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 plots of land belonging to the applicant in Mamak district in Ankara. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land belonging to the applicant and compensation was paid to him when the expropriation took place. Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, the Ankara First Instance Court awarded him additional compensation at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, namely the rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision. The court decided that the running of the statutory rate of interest will start from 25 July 1991. On 25 April 1994 upon the General Directorate’s appeal, the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 19 January 1998 the administration paid the applicant the additional compensation awarded to him together with interest. 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)             25.07.1991           25.04.1994    3,001,200,000   19.01.1998 8,882,537,000       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 the additional compensation. THE LAW On 15 February 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of the Republic of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia to the applicant, Mr Mehmet Köklücan, an all-inclusive amount of 50,000 (fifty thousand) United States dollars (USD) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of his application registered under no. 44253/98. This sum which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as legal expenses connected with the case, shall be free of any tax that may be applicable and be paid in United States dollars to a bank account named by the applicant and / or his duly authorised representative and shall be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s [decision] ... This payment will constitute the final settlement of the case....” On 21 March 2002 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative: “In my capacity as the representative of the applicant, Mr Mehmet Köklücan, 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 50,000 (fifty thousand) United States dollars (USD) with a view to concluding a friendly settlement of the case that originated in application no. 44253/98. 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 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 ... Having duly consulted the applicant, I accept the proposal 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.” 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