CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 septembre 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 } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s7C119006 { width:5.02pt; 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 } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s67514D3E { margin-left:29.21pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .sBD624747 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:15.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sCCA0F1D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s731EBF6B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; font-size:14pt } .s16FF0C53 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .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 } .sEDBB6694 { width:42.89pt; display:inline-block } .s72B664E2 { width:132.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s8DC73591 { width:184.78pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 46562/99 by Fikret ODABAŞI and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7   September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki, judges , and   Mrs   F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 September 1998, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Fikret Odabaşı, Mr Ömer Karaman and Mr Mustafa Tüten are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1944, 1939 and 1948 respectively, and live in Istanbul. They are represented before the Court by Mr Hüsamettin Koçak, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 10 September 1992 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways ( Karayolları   Genel Müdürlüğü ) expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amounts were paid to the applicants.   Proceedings concerning the first and third applicants   Following the applicants’ requests for additional compensation, on 4   June 1996, the Pendik Civil Court of First Instance ( Asliye   Hukuk   Mahkemesi ) awarded   them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate. On 26 September 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments. On 17 March 1998 the due amounts were paid to the applicants.   Proceedings concerning the second applicant   Following the applicant’s request for additional compensation, on 16   October 1996, the Pendik Civil Court of First Instance ( Asliye   Hukuk   Mahkemesi ) awarded   him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate. On 1 October 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. On 17 March 1998 the due amount was paid to the applicant.   Details are indicated in the table below:   NAMES OF THE APPLICANTS DATE FROM WHICH THE STATUTORY RATE OF INTEREST (30% and 50%) BEGAN TO RUN DATE OF FINAL DECISION BY             COURT OF CASSATION AS REGARDS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION 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 %   and 50 % PER ANNUM AND COSTS)   (the statutory rate of interest was 30% from 19.12.1984 and 50% from 1.1.1998) (in Turkish liras)   Fikret Odabaşı   23.01.1996 26.09.1996 824,500,000 17.03.1998 1,434,886,000 Ömer Karaman 26.12.1995 01.10.1997 1,808,548,988 17.03.1998 3,178,234,000 Mustafa Tüten   23.12.1995 26.09.1996 1,209,144,395 17.03.1998 2,122,575,000 COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the authorities had delayed in paying them the additional compensation and that at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey had been very high, they had been paid insufficient interest. THE LAW 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 Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the   case file, determine the admissibility of the complaints brought before the Court by the first and third applicants and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule   54   § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government. Insofar as the second applicant’s complaint concerns his entitlement to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, the Court must examine whether a fair balance has been maintained between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights; in that regard, the terms and conditions on which the compensation is payable under domestic legislation and the manner in which they were applied to the applicant’s case must be considered (see Lithgow and others v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 8   July 1996, Series   A no. 102, p. 50, § 120). The Court reiterates that the adequacy of compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as unreasonable delay (see, mutatis mutandis , Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece , judgment of 9   December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 90, § 82). Abnormally lengthy delays in the payment of compensation for expropriation lead to increased financial loss for the person whose land has been expropriated, putting him or her in a position of uncertainty especially when the monetary depreciation which occurs in certain States is taken into account (see Akkuş ,   v.   Turkey , judgment of 9   July 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV, p.   1317, § 29). The Court notes that, for the second applicant, the greater part of the additional compensation together with the interest at the rate of 30% per   annum and from 1   January   1998 at the rate of 50% per annum was paid on 17 March 1998, that is to say four months sixteen days after the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. The Court observes that according to the calculation method adopted in the judgment of Akkuş v. Turkey case (see Akkuş , cited above, § 35) on the date of the finalisation of the judgment or within a reasonable period thereafter, the applicant should have received 2,758,037,207 Turkish liras (TRL). On the date of the payment the amount of full compensation should have been TRL 3,003,119,185. The applicant received TRL   3,178,234,000, which is 105.83 % of the full compensation. Thus, the Court finds that the second applicant appears to have suffered no damage in respect of the amount of compensation awarded to him. The Court observes that the interest rates applied to the additional compensation were sufficient to compensate the second applicant for any damage resulting from the authorities’ delay in payment of the compensation. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the first and the third applicants’ complaints concerning the national authorities’ delay in paying the additional compensation for expropriation and damage sustained by the applicants as a result of the low interest rate applied to it; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Nicolas Bratza   Deputy Registrar   President