CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 mai 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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s51BFCD5E { width:209.13pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 41003/98 by Sevgi BAYSAL and Hanife ACAR against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23   May   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   M. Tsatsa - Nikolovska , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 1998, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case submitted by the applicants and the Government on 8   November   2001 and 11 April 2002 respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Turkish nationals, born in 1946 and 1917 respectively and living in İstanbul. They are represented before the Court by Mr M.N. Terzi, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 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 applicants in İstanbul in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land belonging to the applicants and this amount was paid to them when the expropriation took place. Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 31   March 1993 the Silivri Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded them additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30 % per annum. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 9   November   1993 and the due amount was paid to the applicant in 1998. Details 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 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) 09.11.1993 962.500.000 08.01.1998 2.854.922.000 COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey was very high, they were paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following the expropriation of their land and that the authorities delayed in paying them the relevant amounts. THE LAW Following informal contacts between the applicants’ 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 73,700 (seventy-three thousand seven hundred) United States dollars to Ms Sevgi Baysal and Ms Hanife Acar with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no. 41003/98. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs. 36,850 (thirty-six thousand eight hundred and fifty) US dollars of this sum, which corresponds to half of the whole sum agreed upon, will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court... This sum shall be paid in US Dollars to a bank account named by the applicants, free of any taxes and charges that may be applicable. The Government further agree to pay the remaining 36,850 (thirty-six thousand eight hundred and fifty) US dollars within six months following notification of the decision by the Court... This sum shall also be paid in US Dollars to a bank account named by the applicants, free of any taxes and charges that may be applicable. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case...” The Court received the following declaration from the representative of the applicants:   “I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay the sum of 73,700 (seventy-three thousand seven hundred) United States dollars covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Ms Sevgi Baysal and Ms Hanife Acar with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application no. 41003/98 pending before the Court. I also note that the payment of the sum will be paid in the following conditions: 36,850 (thirty-six thousand eight hundred and fifty) US dollars within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court ... and 36,850 (thirty-six thousand eight hundred and fifty) US dollars within six months from the date of notification of this decision. 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 applicants 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 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