CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 novembre 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 } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sC5C8E089 { height:75.15pt } .sDD6DE49A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s95AD1C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sF1CB244D { 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 } .s88BFE2F0 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt } .sED7BD88E { height:64.55pt } .sE122A46 { 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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sF4EDB80C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s689ACF7B { 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; vertical-align:top } .sAC88756B { height:56.25pt } .sEC1E756B { height:55.75pt } .sADAB756B { height:56.55pt } .s41240776 { height:55.9pt } .sAD0C756B { height:56.65pt } .sACC6756B { height:56.05pt } .sABBE756B { height:56.85pt } .s424D0776 { height:55.6pt } .sACE9756B { height:56.35pt } .s46E96D70 { height:48.75pt } .s68BBE8B1 { height:49.4pt } .sCA884627 { height:68.5pt } .s74DAF07F { height:96.85pt } .s581A4627 { height:61.4pt } .sA8740776 { height:56.6pt } .s8900AD57 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt } .s41D34707 { 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; vertical-align:top } .sDF759458 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sD73EB0F { width:14.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD6BE18B4 { width:200.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION PARTIAL DECISION Application no. 37616/02 by İbrahim Halil KÖSE and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4   November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   Dragoljub Popović,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 May 1997, 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 deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, İbrahim Halil Köse, Müslüm Köse, Mehmet Köse, Bozan Köse, Meryem Köse and Zöhre Köse, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1955, 1961, 1966, 1957, 1964 and 1927 respectively and live in Şanlıurfa. They are represented before the Court by Mr Y. Karataş, a lawyer practising in Şanlıurfa. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources expropriated several plots of land belonging to the applicants in the Meteler village of Birecik, in Şanlıurfa, for the construction of the Birecik Dam. Subsequently, the applicants commenced proceedings for additional compensation before the Birecik Civil Court for their respective plots. The details regarding the proceedings are indicated in the table below:   NAMES OF THE APPLICANTS   DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICANTS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION DATE OF FIRST-INSTANCE COURT DECISION DATE OF COURT OF CASSATION DECISION AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AWARDED (in Turkish liras (TRL)) DATES AND AMOUNTS OF PAYMENT (INCLUDING STATUTORY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 30 % PER ANNUM AND COSTS) (in TRL)   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse   (parcel no. 106)   22/03/1996   22 /05/1996   10/09/1996   71,747,286   Information not provided by the applicants.   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse   (parcel no. 105)   22/03/1996   22/05/1996   10/09/1996   15,793,428   Information not provided by the applicants.   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse   (parcel no. 155)   19/03/1996   26/08/1996   18/11/1996   1,868,488,592   14/02/1997 2,324,891,115   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse   (parcel no. 193)   19/03/1996   26/08/1996   18/11/1996   2,161,447,064   14/02/1997 2,698,610,288   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse   (parcel no. 157)   19/03/1996   26/08/1996   18/11/1996   1,063,296,256   14/02/1997 1,300,603,385   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse   (parcel no. 195)   19/03/1996   26/08/1996   18/11/1996   1,850,677,152   14/02/1997 2,301,699,955   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse   (parcel no. 27)   19/03/1996   27/08/1996   27/12/1996   406,275,000   10/06/1997 495,477,646   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse   (parcel no. 150)   19/03/1996   5/07/1996   25/11/1996   209,207,112   14/02/1997 228,681,850   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse   (parcel no. 171)   19/03/1996   26/08/1996   18/11/1996   772,542,480   14/02/1997 931,692,931   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse   (parcel no. 135)   19/03/1996     26/08/1996   25/11/1996   627,694,984   14/02/1997 747,662,131   İ. Halil Köse   (parcel no. 203)   19/03/1996   27/08/1996   23/12/1996   2,667,498,900   10/06/1997 2,595,161,406   İ. Halil Köse   (parcel no. 129)   19/03/1996   11/10/1996   23/12/1996   688,410,160   10/06/1997 632,468,110   Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 106)   15/03/1996   22/05/1996   10/09/1996   107,611,390   Information not provided by the applicants.   Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 105)   15/03/1996   22/05/1996   10/09/1996   23,690,142   Information not provided by the applicants.   Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 155)   15/03/1996   11/06/1996   11/11/1996   2,765,682,888   Information not provided by the applicants.   Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 193)   15/03/1996   11/06/1996   11/11/1996   3,100,162,596   Information not provided by the applicants.   Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 157)   15/03/1996   11/06/1996   11/11/1996   1,579,944,384   Information not provided by the applicants.   Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 195)   15/03/1996   11/06/1996   11/11/1996   2,802,387,354   Information not provided by the applicants.   Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 27)   15/03/1996   27/01/1997   03/03/1997   609,412,800   Information not provided by the applicants.   Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 150)   15/03/1996   11/06/1996   11/11/1996   313,810,668   Information not provided by the applicants.   Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 171)   15/03/1996   11/06/1996   11/11/1996   1,143,813,720   Information not provided by the applicants.   Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 135)   15/03/1996   11/06/1996   11/11/1996   926,542,476   Information not provided by the applicants.   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 4)     15/03/1996   22/05/1996   10/09/1996   893,903,040   Information not provided by the applicants.   İ. Halil Köse Zöhre Köse Bozan Köse Mehmet Köse Müslüm Köse Meryem Köse   (parcel no. 6)   15/03/1996   22/05/1996   10/09/1996   85,236,697   Information not provided by the applicants.   Mehmet Köse (property not registered with the title deed)   15/03/1996   22/05/1996   10/09/1996   692,774,856   Information not provided by the applicants.   Bozan Köse (property not registered with the title deed)   15/03/1996   22/05/1996   10/09/1996   1,190,008,422   Information not provided by the applicants.   No information has been received as to the dates and amounts of payments, if any, with respect to certain parcels despite repeated requests, as indicated in the above table. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the excessive delay in the payment of additional compensation, coupled with the low interest rates applied, had caused them financial loss. The applicants also maintained that the delay in the payments 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 A.     Shares of İbrahim Halil Köse and Zöhre Köse in parcel nos. 155, 193, 157, 195, 27, 150, 171, 135, 203 and 129 1.     Article 1 of Protocol No. 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 of the insufficient interest rates applied. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint in respect of the above parcels owned by İbrahim Halil Köse and Zöhre Köse. 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. 2.     Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 notes that the respective payments for the relevant parcels were all made with a maximum delay of six months. In the light of the case of Ak v. Turkey (no. 27150/02, 31 July 2007, §§ 23-29), the Court considers that these delays do not constitute any violation of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. B.     Remaining shares and parcels The Court notes that on 18 October 2002 and 22 August 2007 the Registry of the Court sent letters to the applicants’ representative, the second letter via registered mail, requesting information regarding the dates and payments relating to the remaining parcels, if any. The applicants’ representative was warned in the second letter that the relevant complaints might be struck out of the list for lack of interest in the event of failure to complete the case file by 20 September 2007. On 31 August 2007 the applicants’ representative replied to the Registry, but failed to submit the requested information without providing any explanation. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application in relation to the remaining shares and parcels for which they submitted no payment information. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of this part of the application to be continued. It therefore decides to strike the application out of its list of cases insofar as it concerns the remaining shares and parcels. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the complaints of İbrahim   Halil   Köse and Zöhre Köse in relation to parcel nos. 155, 193, 157, 195, 27, 150, 171, 135, 203 and 129 concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases insofar as it concerns the remaining shares and parcels.       Sally Dollé   Françoise Tulkens   Registrar   President