CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 mai 2004

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .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 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; 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 } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-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 } .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 } .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 } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s43E2F1C1 { width:23.55pt; display:inline-block } .sDC58D3A0 { width:216.81pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 49398/99 by Gülizar PEMBE and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27   May   2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan, judges , and Mr M. V ıllıger , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 June 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Gülizar Pembe, Mıstık Ateş, Ismail Karapınar and Yüksel Bozkaya, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1945, 1935, 1948 and 1938 and live in Iskenderun and Belen respectively. They are represented before the Court by Mr Şekip Ensari and Mr Murat Ensari,   lawyers practising in İskenderun. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. In 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways, expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants in İskenderun in order to build the İskenderun Motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land belonging to the applicants and these amounts were paid to them when the expropriation took place. Following the applicants' requests for increased compensation on 10   October, 20 August, 10 October and 21 November 1996 respectively, the Iskenderun Civil Court of First Instance awarded them on 25 September, 19   September, 7 October and 25 September 1997 respectively additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court's decisions, running from the date of transfer of title-deed of the lands. In 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments of the Iskenderun Civil Court of First Instance. On 11 May 1998 and 1 July 1998 the applicants' paid the charges concerning the communication of the decision to the administration. The due amounts were paid to the applicants between April and June   1999. Details are indicated in the table below:   NAMES OF THE APPLICANTS DATE OF TRANSFER OF TITLE DEED OF THE LANDS   DATE OF FINAL DECISION OF THE COURT OF CASSATION AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION (INTERESTS AND LEGAL COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED) (In Turkish liras) DATE AND AMOUNT OF PAYMENT (INCLUDING STATUTORY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 30 % & 50 % PER ANNUM AND COSTS) (in Turkish liras) Gülizar Pembe 11.09.1996 11.05.1998 6,467,500,000 13.04.1999 13,656,653,000 Mıstık Ateş 7.08.1996 11.05.1998 41,410,845,000 08.04.1999 88,277,777,000 Ismail Karapınar   11.09.1996 20.05.1998 13,075,000,000 04.06.1999 28,865,810,000 Yüksel Bozkaya 23.10.1996   25.05.1998 80,274,368,000 12.05.1999 168,001,702,000 COMPLAINTS The applicants contend under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that initial amount of compensation for expropriation determined by the authorities was too low and that they had been paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following the expropriation of their land. They further claim that the authorities had delayed in paying them the relevant amounts. The applicants complain that the length of the civil proceedings exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE LAW 1. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had been paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following the expropriation of their land and that the authorities had delayed in paying them the relevant amounts. The applicants complain that the length of the civil proceedings exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court considers that it cannot on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of them to the respondent Government. 2. The applicants contend under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the initial amount of compensation determined by the authorities was too low. The Court observes that by seeking additional compensation before the domestic courts, the applicants challenged the level of the initial amount and obtained rulings that they were entitled to increased compensation. The rulings of the Court of Cassation mark the final decision in respect of the applicants' complaints about the low-level of initial compensation awarded. The Court notes that the applicants' paid the charges concerning the communication of the decision to the administration on 11 May 1998 and 1   July 1998 respectively. Therefore, the Court considers that they learned of the decision of the Court at the latest on 11 May 1998 and 1   July 1998, whereas the application was introduced with the Court on 14 June 1999, i.e. more than six months later.     It follows that this part of the application has been introduced outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by Article 35 § 1 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants' complaints concerning insufficient interest applied to additional compensation, the delay of the authorities in payment of the additional compensation and the length of the civil proceedings; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Mark V ıllıger   Georg ress Deputy Registrar   President