CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 novembre 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8031FF69 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8E1B9F9 { width:203.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 19452/07 Nesrin YILDIRIM against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22   November 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Valeriu Griţco, President,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 May 2007, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Ms Nesrin Yıldırım, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Antalya. She was represented before the Court by Mr O. Evren, a lawyer practising in Antalya. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicant had a share of a plot of land in Balbey, in the Merkez District of Antalya. 5.     On 20 February 1990 the Directorate General of Foundations ( Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü , hereinafter referred to as “the Directorate”) decided to expropriate the applicant’s land. 6.     On 28 December 1990 the Directorate paid the amount of 220,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) [1] into a bank account opened on behalf of the applicant, as compensation for the expropriation of her property. 7.     On 8 February 1991 the applicant brought a civil action before the Antalya Civil Court of First Instance and claimed additional expropriation compensation. 8.     On 16 August 2006 the Antalya Civil Court of First Instance partially accepted the applicant’s claim and awarded the applicant TRL   15,167,796,860 (the equivalent of approximately 8,200 euros (EUR) at the time) as additional expropriation compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate running from 13 February 1991 until 17 October 2001 and at the maximum rate applicable to public debts running from 17 October 2001 onwards. 9.     The Directorate’s appeal and rectification requests were rejected by the Court of Cassation and the decision became final on 2 April 2007. 10.     On 30 January 2007 and on 23 February 2007 the Directorate paid the applicant the expropriation compensation including the interest, namely TRY 123,109 (approximately EUR 66,790) and TRY 25,821 (approximately EUR 14,300) respectively. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 11.     A description of the domestic law and practice with respect to the Compensation Commission mentioned below (paragraph 14) may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINT 12.     The applicant complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention on account of the financial loss caused by the depreciation of her compensation award as result of the length of domestic proceedings and the high inflation rates. THE LAW 13.     The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that due to the length of compensation proceedings and the high inflation rates in Turkey the amount of the expropriation compensation paid to her had been considerably less than the market value of her expropriated land. 14.     The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established in Turkey to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings, the delayed execution of judgments 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 applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as she had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 15.     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 the 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. 16.     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. 17.     However, taking into account the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicant’s failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Yıldız and Yanak , cited above. 18.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that the application should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 15 December 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Valeriu Griţco Deputy 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.