CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 28 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 } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; 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 } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s10F9E4BE { width:199.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 31790/96 by Kamil YILDIRIM against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28   May 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 1996, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case submitted by the applicant and the Government on 2   November   2001 and 17 April   2002 respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is a Turkish national born in 1944 and living in İzmir. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Süha Tanrıöver, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In the beginning of 1992 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways ( Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü ), a state body responsible, inter alia , for motorway construction, expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicant in İzmir in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and on 21   February 1992 this amount was paid to him when the expropriation took place. Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 23   June   1992 the İzmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded him 2.566.875.000 Turkish Liras of additional compensation for the first plot and 1.004.415.000 Turkish Liras for the second,   plus interest at the rate of 30 % per annum, as well as costs and expenses since 21 February 1992. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 20 October 1992 for the first plot of land and on 8 December 1992 for the second. However, the due amount was not paid to the applicant. On 9 and 10 October 1996 the General Directorate paid additional compensation corresponding to 6.377.768.000 Turkish Liras for the first plot and 2.548.458.000 Turkish Liras for the second. These amounts included interest at the rate of 30 % per annum, as well as costs and expenses covering the period from 21 February 1992 to 14 October 1996. 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 was 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 amount. 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 two declarations from the Government proposing to pay the amount of 300,000 US dollars in two installments. Declaration (1): “I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand) United States dollars to Mr Kamil Yıldırım corresponding to half of the sum agreed upon with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no. 31790/96. 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 applicant, free of any taxes and charges that may be applicable...” Declaration (2): “I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand) United States dollars to Mr Kamil Yıldırım corresponding to half of the sum agreed upon with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no. 31790/96. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within six 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 applicant, 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 applicant: “I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay the sum of 300,000 (three hundred thousand) United States dollars covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Mr Kamil Yıldırım with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application no.31790/96 pending before the Court. I also note that the payment of the sum will be paid in the following conditions: 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand) US dollars within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court... and 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand) US dollars within six months from the date of delivery 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 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 the Court). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President