CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 septembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .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 } .sFBA46575 { height:35.95pt } .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 } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s15C14C6D { width:213.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 74529/01 by Hasan KUZU against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26   September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström ,   Ms   D. Jočienė ,   Mr   D. Popović, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar . Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1 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 decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the Court’s decision of 20 September 2005 to strike the above the application out of its list of cases, Having regard to the Court’s decision of 28 February 2006 to restore the application to its list of cases, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Hasan Kuzu, was a Turkish national who was born in 1929. He was represented before the Court by Ms   Ö. Sözer, a lawyer practising in Mersin. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 14 July 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways ( Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü ), a state body responsible, inter alia , for motorway construction, expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in İçel in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the applicant received the sum of 144,410,000 Turkish Liras (TRL) when the expropriation took place. On 28 December 1993 the applicant brought an action before the Mersin Civil Court of First Instance for increased compensation. On 14   December 1994 the Mersin Civil Court of First Instance awarded him additional compensation of TRL 150,736,255 and simple default interest at the rate of 30 % per annum from 14 December 1993, the date on which the title to the land was transferred. On 26 January 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court. On 24 June 1998 the applicant received the sum of TRL 417,997,000, including the additional compensation awarded by the court and the interest for the delay. The details are indicated in the table below.     DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT AS REGARDS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION BECAME FINAL 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)   26.01.1998   150,736,255   24.06.1998   417,997,000 COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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. PROCEDURE 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. On   12 May 2005 and 26 April 2002 the applicant and the Government respectively submitted formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. On 20   September   2005 the Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases following the settlement of the case. In a fax message dated 19 December 2005 the Government notified the Court that the applicant had died on 24 April 2003. In a fax message dated 14 February 2005, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that she had not been aware of the applicant’s death. She further informed the Court that the applicant’s heirs, Elif Başlı (Kuzu), Havva Kalınlı (Kuzu), Reşat Kuzu, Rafet Kuzu and Mehmet Altuğ, wished to pursue his application. On 28 February 2006 the Court decided to restore the application to its list of cases. Subsequently, the Registrar addressed new draft declarations to the parties. THE LAW On 29 May 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia 7,500   (seven   thousand five hundred) euros to Mr Hasan Kuzu’s heirs, Mrs Elif Başlı (Kuzu), Mrs Havva Kalınlı (Kuzu), Mr Reşat Kuzu, Mr   Rafet Kuzu and Mr Mehmet Altuğ, with a view to securing a friendly settlement in 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. 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 ....” On 7 June 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the applicant’s representative: “I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred) euros to Mr Hasan Kuzu’s heirs, Mrs Elif Başlı (Kuzu), Mrs   Havva Kalınlı (Kuzu), Mr Reşat Kuzu, Mr   Rafet Kuzu and Mr   Mehmet Altuğ, with a view to securing a friendly settlement in 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 of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and the applicant’s heirs have reached ....” 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President