CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 novembre 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 } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s1D1639D9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s1B106575 { height:34.05pt } .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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application No. 73676/01 by Dursun ÖNSÖZ against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21   November 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve, judges , and   Mr   V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 July 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Dursun Önsöz, is a Turkish national, born in 1954 and living in İstanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr   Koçak, a lawyer practising in İstanbul. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1989, the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways ( Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü ) expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in İstanbul. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and this amount was paid to him when the expropriation took place. Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 12   April 1993 the Kartal İstanbul Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded him additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30 % per annum. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 17   November 1993 and the due amount was paid to the applicant on 12 January 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 ARE 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)   17.11.1993   34,440,000   12.01.1998   113,442,000 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 had been 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 amounts. 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 the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Turkey offer to pay 3,200 (three thousand two hundred) Euros to Mr   Dursun Önsöz. This sum is to 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 judgment by the Court pursuant to the Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This sum shall be paid in Euros to a bank account named by the applicant, 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 applicant: “I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay the sum of 3,200 (three thousand two hundred) Euros covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Mr   Dursun Önsöz with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. 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] [by a majority]   Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President