CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 29 septembre 2005

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCD61FA93 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDAE91DF8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39926ECA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6E0F97D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE5EF7E53 { width:190.09pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } THIRD SECTION DECISION [1] Application no. 66901/01 by Yağub YILDIRIM [2] and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29   September 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   B.M. Zupančič , President ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Ms   R. Jaeger ,   Mr   E. Myjer, judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 October 2000, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Yağub Yıldırım 2 , Ekrem Yıldırım, Abdülhamit Yıldırım, Galip Yıldırım, Fahrettin Yıldırım, Münire Yıldırım, Fatma Yıldırım and Faruk Tekin Yıldırım, are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr T. Akıllıoğlu, Mr A. Aktay and Mr   M.   Nerse, lawyers practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 13 March 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants in İskenderun in order to build a 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. On 2 February 1997, following the applicants’ requests for increased compensation, the İskenderun Civil Court of First Instance awarded them additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from the date of transfer of title ‑ deed of the lands. On 7 July 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the İskenderun Civil Court of First Instance. On 4 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways made payments to the applicants. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they were paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following the expropriation of the plots of land. They further allege that the authorities delayed in paying them the relevant amounts. The applicants contend that the length of the proceedings exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 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 ex gratia EUR 13,000 (thirteen   thousand euros) to Yağub Yıldırım [3] , Ekrem Yıldırım, Abdülhamit Yıldırım, Galip   Yıldırım, Fahrettin   Yıldırım, Münire Yıldırım, Fatma Yıldırım and Faruk Tekin Yıldırım with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no.   66901/01. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any tax, stamp duty or imposts that may be applicable at the date of payment. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article   37   § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. Ankara, 12 July 2005”   The Court had received the following declaration signed by one of the representatives of the applicants: “We note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of EUR   13,000 (thirteen   thousand euros) to Yağub Yıldırım [4] , Ekrem Yıldırım, Abdülhamit Yıldırım, Galip   Yıldırım, Fahrettin   Yıldırım, Münire Yıldırım, Fatma Yıldırım and Faruk Tekin Yıldırım with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any tax, stamp duty or imposts that may be applicable at the date of payment. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case. Mersin, 21 June 2005” The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article   37   §   1   in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Vincent Berger   Boštjan M. Zupančič Registrar President [1] This version has been rectified under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court on 2 March 2006.   [2] Rectified on 2 March 2006: The applicant’s name read Yağup Yıldırım in the former version. [3] Rectified on 2 March 2006: The applicant’s name read Yağup Yıldırım in the former version.   [4] Rectified on 2 March 2006: The applicant’s name read Yağup Yıldırım in the former version.