CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 avril 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s71833996 { width:42.55pt; display:inline-block } .s4932091F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC97E6800 { width:214.64pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 31592/05 by Hasan BAŞAK against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22   April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Rıza Türmen,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 August 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Hasan Başak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1926 and lives in Gaziantep. He is represented before the Court by Mr   M.   Akdoğan, a lawyer practising in Mersin. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date the applicant’s plot of land was expropriated by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources for the construction of the Birecik Dam. On 29 May 2000 the applicant lodged an application with the Nizip   Civil Court, requesting additional compensation for the expropriation of his land. On 28 December 2001 the Nizip Civil Court awarded the applicant additional compensation of 41,441,760,000 Turkish Liras (TRL) (approximately 33,221 euros (EUR)). On 13 May 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the court of first instance. On 28 February 2005 the administration paid the applicant TRL   177,060,270,000 (approximately EUR 103,555) in additional compensation together with interest. COMPLAINT Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the delay in the payment of the additional compensation and the financial loss he suffered as a result of this delay. THE LAW 1. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the financial loss he had suffered due to the delay in the payment of the additional compensation and the insufficient interest rates. The Court finds that - using the same method of calculation as in the Akkuş v.   Turkey judgment of 9 July 1997 ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV, p. 1311, §§ 35, 36 and 39) and having regard to the relevant economic data at the material time - on the date of the payment the amount of full compensation should have been TRL   132,984,273,087 (approximately EUR 77,777). The applicant received TRL   177,060,270,000 (approximately EUR 103,555) which is 133.1 % of the full compensation. Thus, the Court observes that the applicant suffered no damage in respect of the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Nizip Civil Court on 28   December 2001. The interest rate applied to the additional compensation was sufficient to compensate the applicant for any financial loss. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2. The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the excessive length of the period during which the administration had failed to enforce the judgment given in his favour. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It further considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of proceedings on account of the delay in the payment of additional compensation; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.     Sally Dollé   Françoise Tulkens   Registrar   President