CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 novembre 2009

.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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB30C44B0 { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s924548EB { width:198.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Applications nos. 5583/06, 12318/06 and 13236/06 by Fatma Özkan and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10   November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Dragoljub Popović,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications lodged on 6 February 2006 and 8 March 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are all Turkish nationals who lived in Trabzon. They are represented before the Court by Mr H. C. Yalçın, a lawyer practising in Trabzon. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 31 October 2000 the Ministry of Industry and Trade (“the Ministry”) expropriated the applicants’ plots of land located in the Yaylacık and Esentepe villages of Vakfıkebir, Trabzon. The applicants subsequently brought cases before the Vakfıkebir Civil Court for additional expropriation compensation. Following the finalisation of these judgments, the applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Trabzon Execution Office to obtain the extra compensation which had been awarded to them. On 20 September 2006 the Ministry made partial payments to the Trabzon Execution Office in respect of the applicants’ additional expropriation compensation. The details regarding the civil proceedings and the subsequent payments appear in the table below:   APP. NO. APPLICANT’S NAME and DATE OF BIRTH   DATE OF FIRST-INSTANCE COURT DECISION and AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED (in Turkish liras (TRL)) DATE FROM WHICH THE STATUTORY RATE OF INTEREST BEGAN TO RUN DATE OF COURT OF CASSATION DECISION AMOUNT OF PAYMENT (In Turkish liras (TRY [1] )) and FILE NO. BEFORE THE EXECUTION OFFICE   5583/06   Fatma Özkan (1931)     21.09.2001 (2001/70-120)   2,774,102,250   18.01.2001   18.03.2002 (E: 1146)   671.36   (Trabzon 2 nd Execution Office, no.   2006/2491)   12318/06   Mustafa Kaya (1935)   26.06.2001 (2001/71-82)   40,692,316,500   11.01.2001   4.03.2002 (E: 601)   13,973.84   (Trabzon 2 nd Execution Office, no.   2006/2497)   12318/06   Ömer Kaya (1939)   21.09.2001 (2001/77-122)   101,487,832,250   11.01.2001   4.03.2002 (E: 602)   22,666.32   (Trabzon 2 nd Execution Office, no.   2006/2493)   12318/06   Yıldız Kaya (1954)   21.09.2001 (2001/73-121)   33,804,768,750 (applicant’s share was only 1/24 of the total amount)   16.01.2001   11.03.2002 (E: 807)   7,124.29   (applicant was only entitled to 1/24 of this amount)   (Trabzon 2 nd Execution Office, no.   2006/2496)   12318/06   Mehmet Kaya (1918)     26.06.2001 (2001/74-80)   34,182,093,000   14.01.2001   25.03.2002 (E: 1596)   7,423.92   (Trabzon 2 nd Execution Office, no.   2006/2498)   12318/06   Kemal Kadıoğlu (1924)   26.06.2001 (2001/75-79)   13,400,615,250   18.01.2001   15.04.2002 (E: 4963)   4,601.94   (Trabzon 3 rd Execution Office, no.   2006/2342)   12318/06   Faik Kaya (1927)   7.06.2002 (2002/75-82)   116,566,732,000   4.01.2001   No appeal (first-instance court’s decision became final on 9.09.2002)   25,541.03   (Trabzon 3 rd Execution Office, no.   2006/2343)   12318/06   Turan Kaya (1952)   23.10.2001 (2001/69-178)   29,045,130,150 (applicant’s share was only 1/6 of the total amount)   25.01.2001   18.03.2002 (E: 1145)   5,024.66   (applicant was only entitled to 1/6 of this amount)   (Trabzon 2 nd Execution Office, no.   2006/2494)   12318/06   Osman Kaya (1937)   16.07.2002 (2002/103-116)   37,006,065,750   11.01.2001   No appeal (first-instance court’s decision became final on 13.09.2002)   8,362.40   (Trabzon 3 rd Execution Office, no.   2006/2344)   12318/06   Emine Yıldız   (1947)   21.09.2001 (2001/68-123)   113,530,734,000 (applicant’s share was only 1/4 of the total amount)   18.01.2001   18.03.2002 (E: 1297)   20,736.03 (applicant was only entitled to 1/4 of this amount)   (Trabzon 2 nd Execution Office, no.   2006/2495)       13236/06   Fikriye Kaya (1945)   26.06.2001 (2001/78-83)   3,131,457,500 (applicant’s share was only 1/4 of the total amount)   18.01.2001   18.03.2002 (E: 1144)   1,033.69 (applicant was only entitled to 1/4 of this amount)   (Trabzon 2 nd Execution Office, no.   2006/2492)   According to the latest information in the case file, the judgments of the Vakfıkebir Civil Court remain partially unenforced. COMPLAINT Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complained that the Vakfıkebir Civil Court judgments had not been fully executed since 2001 and 2002. THE LAW 1.     In view of the similarity of the present applications both as regards their factual circumstances and the legal issues they disclose, the Court deems it appropriate to join them. 2.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the failure of the State authorities to execute the domestic court judgments in full. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (i)     As regards the applicants Osman Kaya and Mehmet Kaya (application no. 12318/06) The Court notes that two of the applicants, namely Osman Kaya and Mehmet Kaya, died on 28 December 2003 and 1 June 2005 respectively, after the finalisation of the domestic proceedings but before the present applications were lodged with the Court. In this connection, the Court points out that an application of the present kind cannot be brought in the name of a deceased person, since a deceased person is unable, even through a representative, to lodge an application with the Court (see Macedonia Gavrielidou and Others v.   Cyprus (dec.), no. 73802/01, 13 November 2003). Therefore, Osman Kaya and Mehmet Kaya cannot claim to have been victims of a violation of their rights under the Convention and Protocol No. 1. It follows that application no. 12318/06, insofar as it relates to the complaints made on behalf of Osman Kaya and Mehmet Kaya, is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. (ii)     As regards the remaining applicants (Fatma Özkan, Mustafa Kaya, Ömer Kaya, Yıldız Kaya, Kemal Kadıoğlu, Faik Kaya, Turan Kaya, Emine Yıldız and Fikriye Kaya) The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the applications to the respondent Government. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to adjourn the examination of the complaint concerning the failure of the domestic authorities to execute the domestic court judgments in full in respect of the applicants Fatma Özkan, Mustafa   Kaya, Ömer Kaya, Yıldız Kaya, Kemal Kadıoğlu, Faik Kaya, Turan Kaya, Emine Yıldız and Fikriye Kaya; Declares the remainder of application no. 12318/06 inadmissible in respect of Osman Kaya and Mehmet Kaya.     Sally Dollé   Françoise Tulkens   Registrar   President   [1]     On 1 January 2005 the Turkish lira (TRY) entered into circulation, replacing the former Turkish lira (TRL). TRY 1= TRL 1,000,000.