CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 mai 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 } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD73EB0F { width:14.21pt; display:inline-block } .s924548EB { width:198.77pt; 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. 41185/05 by Besey AK and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13   May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 October 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Besey Ak, Ms Hanifi Ak, Mr Arif Ak, Ms Ayşe Ak, Ms Zeynep Ak, Mr Rıfat Ak, Mr Mehmet Ak, Ms Güllü Ak, Mr   Müslüm   Ak and Ms Mürvet Ak, are Turkish nationals live in Gaziantep. They are represented before the Court by Mr M.Ş. Yıldız, a lawyer practising in Gaziantep. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date the applicants’ plot of land was expropriated by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources for the construction of the Birecik Dam. On 5 June 2000 the applicants lodged an application with the Nizip   Civil Court requesting additional compensation for the expropriation of their land. On 16 October 2001 the Nizip Civil Court awarded the applicants additional compensation in the amount of 22,238,213,376 Turkish Liras (TRL) (approximately 15,470 euros (EUR)). On 7 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the court of first instance. On 6 June 2005 the administration paid the applicants TRL   87,616,430,000 (approximately EUR 52,825) in additional compensation, together with interest. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the excessive delay in the payment of the additional compensation, coupled with the low interest rates, had caused them to suffer a financial loss. The applicants further maintained that the delay in the payment despite a definitive court order had breached their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE LAW 1.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the financial loss they 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 payment the amount of full compensation should have been TRL   68,404,701,971 (approximately EUR 41,240). The applicants received TRL   87,616,430,000 (approximately EUR 52,825) which is approximately 128 % of that full amount. Thus, the Court observes that the applicants suffered no damage, as the interest rate applied to the additional compensation was sufficient to meet any financial loss which they may have suffered. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article   35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the period during which the administration had failed to enforce the judgment given in their favour. The Court 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 applicants’ 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