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 } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s9A9D0641 { margin-top:1pt; margin-bottom:1pt; 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 } .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 } .s19EB3E82 { width:230pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC4026435 { width:232.15pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6C83CC1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 66173/01 by Hakkı G ürbey and Others 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 23 June 1999, 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 9 April   2002 respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, whose names are listed in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. 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 applicants are the co-owners of a plot of land in the district of Marmara Ereğlisi in Tekirdağ. In 1997 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways ( Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü ), a state body responsible, inter alia , for motorway construction, expropriated this plot of land in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the due amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriations took place. Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 11   December 1997, the Marmara Ereğlisi Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate of 30 % per annum. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 07 May 1998 and the due amount was paid to the applicants in 1999. 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) 07.05.1998 25,476,941,630 15.01.1999 43,328,048,000 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 had been paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following the expropriation of their land and the authorities had 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 5,600 (five thousand six hundred) United States dollars to Mr Hakkı Gürbey, Ms Saide Gürbey, Mr Muhammet Hüseyin Gürbey, Ms Berrin Gürbey, Ms Didem Gürbey, Ms Ülkem Gürbey, Ms Elif Gürbey (Güney) and Ms Sinem Gürbey with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no. 66173/01. 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 ... 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 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 5,600 (five thousand six hundred) United States dollars covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Mr Hakkı Gürbey, Ms Saide Gürbey, Mr Muhammet Hüseyin Gürbey, Ms Berrin Gürbey, Ms Didem Gürbey, Ms Ülkem Gürbey, Ms Elif Gürbey (Güney) and Ms Sinem Gürbey with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application no. 66173/01 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...” 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         APPENDIX   List of the applicants     1. Hakkı Gürbey, who was born in 1932, resides in Istanbul. 2. Saide Gürbey, who was born in 1941, resides in Istanbul. 3. Muhammet Hüseyin Gürbey, who was born in 1977, resides in Istanbul. 4. Berrin Gürbey, who was born in 1971, resides in Istanbul. 5. Didem Gürbey, who was born in 1974, resides in Istanbul. 6. Ülkem Gürbey, who was born in 1969, resides in Istanbul. 7. Elif Gürbey (Güney), who was born in 1967, resides in Istanbul. 8. Sinem Gürbey, who was born in 1980, resides in Istanbul.