CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s93654821 { width:16.99pt; display:inline-block } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s3E3166BC { width:200.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sAC058D5D { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s8338D7FE { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s7A9106BE { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .sE38363E8 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s5C3B2A0 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s25574A0F { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s3E1E756B { height:58.65pt } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s4329F4BD { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt } .sF6503BBB { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt } .s1DD6BEEE { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 39258/05 Ahmet ÇAKMAK against Turkey and 24 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Ksenija Turković,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı , Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the cases 2.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicants’ respective plots of land were expropriated by the administration. Subsequently, pursuant to section 10 of Law   no.   2942 proceedings were initiated before the first instance courts to determine the amount of compensations that should be awarded to the applicants. Based on expert reports, the domestic courts established the amount of compensations and these judgments were subsequently upheld by the Court of Cassation. No interest was applied to the amounts paid. The details of the applications may be found in the appendix. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 4.     A description of the domestic law regarding the new remedy introduced by Law no. 6384 may be found in Turgut and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no.   56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no.   44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINTS   5.     Relying on Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complained about the financial loss they had suffered as a result of the late payment of the expropriation amounts. In this connection, they maintained that no interest had been applied to the amounts awarded by the courts, that the payment had not been made pursuant to Article 46 of the Constitution, and that the authorities had not complied with the three and a half month time-limit in paying the awarded sums. 6.     Some of the applicants also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts had erred in the calculation of the awards. 7.     Furthermore, in some cases, the applicants alleged under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for their home had been breached as a result of the expropriation. THE LAW 8.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. A.     Complaint regarding the alleged financial loss suffered by the applicants 9.     Relying on Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complained about the financial loss they had suffered as a result of the late payment of the expropriation amounts. 10.     The Court will examine this part of the application solely under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Yetiş and Others v.   Turkey , no. 40349/05, § 63, 6 July 2010, and Güleç and Armut v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 25969/09, 16 November 2010). 11.     The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. They further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged loss of value of the amount of the expropriation compensation due to the effects of inflation and the length of the proceedings. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 12.     The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v.   Turkey (no.   24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014), the Court declared an application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the depreciation of awards in expropriation cases. 13.     The Court notes that in its decision in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77), it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of that type which had already been communicated to the Government. 14.     However, taking into account the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicants’ failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Turgut and others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26   March 2013). 15.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that this part of the applications should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.     Other complaints 16.     The applicants also raised other complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. However, in the light of the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. 17.     It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with the Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares inadmissible the applications.   Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. and date introduction Applicant’s name, date of birth, place of residence and Represented by Place of property and Plot No. Decision of the first-instance courts Decision of the Court of Cassation Action by the first-instance courts after the decision of the Court of Cassation The final decision   39258/05 , lodged on 25/10/2005 Ahmet Çakmak 15/11/1949 Niğde   Adil Aktay The village of Başmakçı, parcel no. 79. (134,18 m2) On 26 November 2002 the Ulukışla Civil Court awarded the applicant 61,702,673 TRL in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2002/334-403 K.). On 18 November 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2003/7981-9107 K.). On 31 December 2004 the court awarded the applicant an additional 59,285,633 TRL in compensation (2004/101-369K.). On 10 May 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2005/2404-4835 K.)   39270/05 , lodged on 25/10/2005 Ümmügülsüm Ekici 10/10/1965 Ankara   Fatma Demir 01/09/1967 İzmir   Adil Aktay The village of Toraman, parcel no. 59 (7528,72 m2) On 12 July 2002 the Ulukışla Civil Court awarded the applicants 4,501,700,000 TRL in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2002/241-253 K.). On 4 November 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2003/7377-8551 K.). On 31 December 2004 the court awarded the applicants an additional 2,286,695,867 TRL in compensation (2004/102-366K.). On 12 May 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2005/2406-4994 K.).   4058/06 , lodged on 09/01/2006 Tevfik Yavuz Erkilet 03/11/1957 Yenişehir / İzmir   Adil Aktay The village of Çiftehan, parcel no. 561   On 22 July 2002 the Ulukışla Civil Court awarded the applicant 32,803,665,725 TRL in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2002/92-271 K.). On 14 October 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2003/6571-7684 K.) On 21 April 2005 the court awarded the applicant an additional 23,230,091,879 TRL in compensation (2004/103-2005/61 K.). On 19 July 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2005/5339-7665 K.).   2106/07 , lodged on 20/11/2006 İsmail Bulduklar 01/01/1952 Adana   Ahmet Bulduklar 01/01/1957 Adana   Adil Aktay The village of Tufanlı, parcel no. 592 (6.304 m2)   On 4 November 2003 the Kozan Civil Court awarded the applicants 14,495,680,000 TRL in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2003/137-425 K.). On 23 March 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2004/785-2237 K.). On 8 April 2005 the court awarded the applicants an additional 7,373,994,000 TRL in compensation (2004/163-2005/148 K.). On 23 May 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2006/1733-4244 K.).   19566/07 , lodged on 05/05/2007   Ruhset Özenir 01/01/1943 Adana   Adil Aktay The district of Zafer, parcel no. 5 (24,82 m2) On 18 May 2004 the Pozanlı Civil Court awarded the applicant 1,711,150,000 TRL in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2003/9-2004/237 K.). On 15 February 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2004/10572-2005/793K) On 28 December 2005 the court awarded the applicant an additional 1,711,191 new Turkish liras (TRY) in compensation (2005/162-926 K.) On 29 March 2007 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s rectification request (20071145-2805 K.).   836/08 , lodged on 02/01/2008 Durmuş Ali Çukur 29/07/1945 Ermenek   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 112, parcel no.6   On 24 November 2004 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicant 19,490 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2004/71-374 K.). On 22 September 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2005/7268-8149 K.).   On 27 December 2006 the court awarded the applicant an additional 8,522 TRY in compensation (2006/148-470 K.). On 26 November 2007 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s rectification request (2007/9690-10162 K.).     872/08 , lodged on 02/01/2008 Emine Altunay 01/01/1922 Karaman   Hasan Altunay 01/02/1956 Ermenek   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 114, parcel no.1   On 21 April 2005 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicant 216,991 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2004/83-2005/73 K.).   On 11 April 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2005/10698-2006/2987 K.). On 27 December 2006 the court awarded the applicants an additional 28,183 TRY in compensation (2006/228-471 K.). On 3 December 2007 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ rectification request (2007/9677-10509 K.).   53290/08 , lodged on 25/10/2005 Yaşar Özkan 08/02/1956 Niğde   Mustafa Özkan 01/09/1965 Niğde   Hüsamettin Özkan 25/08/1970 Niğde   Naciye Ünal 01/03/1959 Niğde   Fatma Öz 15/04/1958 Niğde   Zarife Özkan 01/01/1930 Niğde   Ahmet Özkan 08/07/1962 Niğde   Adil Aktay The village of Başmakçı, parcel no.13 (10.473 m2)   On 26 November 2002 the Ulukışla Civil Court awarded the applicants 4,816,340,142 TRL in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2002/336-404 K.). On 18 November 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2003/7982-9108 K.). On 31 December 2004 the court awarded the applicants an additional 4,627,464,200 TRL in compensation (2004/85-365 K.). On 12 May 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2005/2403-4996 K.).   53304/08 , lodged on 25/10/2008 Mahmut Ünal 01/01/1947 Niğde   Adil Aktay The village of Toraman, parcel no.99 On 20 August 2002 the Ulukışla Civil Court awarded the applicant 1,423,280,000 TRL in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2002/246-258 K.).   On 10 June 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2003/3397-4933 K.). On 31 December 2004 the court awarded the applicant an additional 743,470,083 TRL in compensation (2003/332-2004/365 K On 12 May 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2005/2405-4993 K.).   41810/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Mehmet Aktepe 15/07/1938 Ermenek / Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 141, parcel no.4 (133,95 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicant 17,373 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/131E.- 397K.). On 12 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3770 – 6883 K.).   On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicant an additional 17,373 TRY in compensation (2008/37-271 K.). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12927- 2009/894 K.).     41811/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Mehmet Ali Bakır 19/01/1954 Karaman   Emine Altunay 01/09/1965 Karaman   Hasan Ali Bakır 15/10/1947 Karaman   Fatma Belen 10/05/1952 Karaman   Ayşe Balcı 20/03/1963 Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 146, parcel no..9 (134, 32 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicants 21,694 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/139-404 K.).   On 12 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3769-6874 K.). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicants an additional 4,214 TRY in compensation (2008/43-277 K.). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12904-2009/892 K.).   41812/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Ahmet Başçı 01/04/1957 Karaman   Fadime Atay 12/12/1947 Karaman   Hüseyin Başçı 01/08/1953 Karaşan   Ülger Ünzüle 20/01/1950 Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 146, parcel no..2 (134,37 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicants 11,646 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/136-401K.). On 5 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3801-6474K.). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicants an additional 7,594 TRY in compensation (2008/41-275K.). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12905-898 K.).   41813/09, lodged on 27/07/2009   Mehmet Aktepe 15/03/1938 Karaman   Hatice Başçı 25/01/1934 Karaman   Durmuş Aktepe 02/10/1940 Karaman   Emine Gümrah 08/07/1949 Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 141, parcel no.5 (79,67 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicants 16,051 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/130-396). On 29 January 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/7682-2008/575). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicants an additional 4,577 TRY in compensation (2008/128-285). On 16 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12892-2009/1188).   41814/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Ayşe Görgülü 20/10/1945 Karaman   Abdullah Osma 14/07/1956 Karaman   Tahsin Osma 01/02/1949 Karaman Gülşen Sirke 04/03/1955 Karaman   Şerife Dündar 31/01/1950 Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 145, parcel no.4 (153,47 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicants 14,760 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/142-407). On 12 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3762-6882). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicants an additional 8,583 TRY in compensation (2008/45-282K). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12896-2009/896).   41815/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Ahmet Albayrak 01/09/1964 Karaman   Mehmet Albayrak 10/05/1970 Karaman   Hasgül Başçı 11/10/1954 Karaman   Sultan Altunay 07/01/1956 Karaman   Emine Çalışkan 01/04/1962 Karaman   Nursel Davranan 01/05/1966 Karaman   Elmas Çalışkan 01/12/1968 Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 146, parcel no.7 (147,31 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicants 27,951 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/141-406). On 13 November 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/8165-9689). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicants an additional 1,540 TRY in compensation (2008/130-287). On 16 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12902-2009/1130 K.).   41816/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Hüseyin Altunay Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 144, parcel no.8 (288,47 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicant 31,181 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/144-409). On 5 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3810-6482). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicant an additional 5,700 TRY in compensation (2008/47-278K.). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12901-2009/890).   41817/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Emine Ersoy 15/03/1938 Karaman   Emin Ersoy 12/11/1972 Karaman   Durmuş Ersoy 01/11/1976 Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 146, parcel no.4 (465,73 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicants 68,129 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/129-395). On 28 June 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3785-6182). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicants an additional 19,958 TRY in compensation (2008/36-270K.). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12928-2009/887K.).   41818/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Dede Dündar 14/09/1931 Karaman   Fatma Keleş 20/06/1934 Ermenek   Kiraz Altunay 04/05/1939 Ermenek   Ayşe Kücükkaya 07/04/1944 Karaman   Ahmet Dündar 20/06/1947 Ermenek     Emine Albayrak 01/01/1922 Ermenek   Sıttıka Alpdoğan 24/04/1961 Ermenek       Fethiye Özdemir 01/01/1956 Ermenek   İsmail Dündar 01/12/1954 Ermenek   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 146, parcel no.1 (161,50 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicants 15,423 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/128-394K.). On 5 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3793-6471K.). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicants an additional 11,273 TRY in compensation (2008/35-269K.). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12915-2009/888 K.).   41819/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Fatma Başçı 26/08/1933 Ermenek / Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 146, parcel no.8 (184,31m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicant 30,316 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/140-405K.).   On 12 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3774-6885 K.). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicant an additional 5,955 TRY in compensation (2008/44-281 K.). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12898-2009/895 K.).   41820/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Ayşe Ünlü 24/12/1942 Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 146, parcel no.6 (226,41m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicant 8,835 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/138-403 K.). On 12 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3771- 6886 K.). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicant an additional 5,142 TRY in compensation (2008/42-276 K.). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12912-2009/889 K.).   41821/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Hasan Ali Bakır 15/10/1947 Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 146, parcel no.10 (320,08 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicant 29,317 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/132-398 K.). On 5 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3809-6472 K.). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicant an additional 3,075 TRY in compensation (2008/38-272 K.). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12907-2009/899 K.).   41822/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Mevlüt Başçı 05/02/1956 Ermenek / Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 145, parcel no.1 (66,93 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicant 15,637 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/127-393 K.) On 12 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3768-6881 K.). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicant an additional 5,649 TRY in compensation (2008/34-268 K.). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/129-2009/891 K.).   41823/09 , lodged on 27/07/2009   Fermi Osma 13/04/1926 Karaman   Osman Osma 08/09/1955 Karaman   Şerife Polat 01/01/1959 Karaman   Şadiye Ersoy 01/04/1967 Karaman   Asiye Yesilyaprak 11/05/1947 Konya   Mustafa Osma 20/08/1960 Konya     Zübeyde Deniz 01/11/1971 Konya   Şadiye Karadenizli 04/02/1963 Mersin Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 145, parcel no.3 (226,53 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicants 26,491 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/125-391 K.). On 5 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3782-6478 K.). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicants an additional 11,385 TRY in compensation (2008/32-266 K.). On 10 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2008/12903-2009/897 K.).   44015/09 , lodged on 07/08/2009   Orhan Gülkan 01/01/1954 Mersin   Faruk Gülkan 01/01/1950 Mersin   Yüksel Sunar Mersin   Adil Aktay The district of Bey, block 1069, parcel no.93 (74,19m2) On 11 September 2007 the Gaziantep Civil Court awarded the applicants 221,606 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2007/150-361 K.). On 27 May 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2008/5260-7052 K.). On 28 October 2008 the court awarded the applicants an additional 74,000 TRY in compensation (2008/336-512 K.). On 28 April 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2009/235-6530 K.).   44017/09 , lodged on 07/08/2009   Ayşe Başçı 12/02/1931 Karaman   Emine Albayrak 01/01/1922 Ermenek   Ayşe Güleç 01/05/1949 Karaman   Fadime Osma 10/05/1952 Karaman   Adil Aktay The village of Çavuş, block 141, parcel no.2 (295,85 m2) On 24 November 2006 the Ermenek Civil Court awarded the applicants 20,930 TRY in compensation for expropriation and ordered the transfer of the title deed to the administration (2006/123-389K.). On 28 June 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision (2007/3787-6181K.). On 23 September 2008 the court awarded the applicants an additional 10,686 TRY in compensation (2008/30-263 K.). On 3 March 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision (2009/1887-2091 K.).