CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 10 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sD4EAAB82 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC3D571B0 { width:197.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s98466DE9 { height:81pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB4F26D70 { height:46.25pt } .s575C5D7A { height:28.65pt } .sA140EEE1 { height:122.05pt } .s3A1B6575 { height:37.65pt } .s29A8756B { height:57.75pt } .sBCF36575 { height:36.95pt } .sF33E6D70 { height:40.45pt } .sBD5C6575 { height:36.25pt } .sAC160DAD { width:15.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s39976575 { height:37.25pt } .sFC6E6575 { height:35.35pt } .s308E6575 { height:39.75pt } .s46886D70 { height:48.65pt } .sDC826575 { height:31.35pt } .s41375D7A { height:27.85pt } .s4F306575 { height:38.45pt } .sA45B64EC { height:74.5pt } .s294B6D70 { height:42.75pt } .sEC96D88E { height:64.05pt } .s37495D7A { height:29.85pt } .sF4426D70 { height:45.15pt } .s4355D7A { height:20.75pt } .s31F36575 { height:32.55pt } .s26756D70 { height:49.85pt } .s12646D70 { height:43.55pt } .sEA96756B { height:50.65pt } .s172CB0A7 { height:14.45pt } .s2A7D4500 { height:31.8pt } .s3A1F5D7A { height:22.75pt } .s28C76D70 { height:42.35pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sBE1E6575 { height:36.45pt } .sC40D88E { height:67.55pt } .sFC916575 { height:35.65pt } .s24215D7A { height:24.75pt } .sA6784500 { height:35.3pt } .s28A46D70 { height:42.05pt } .sA5914500 { height:35.8pt } .s46046D70 { height:48.25pt } .s3BE4E78A { height:19.2pt } .sDB576575 { height:31.85pt } .s39E90776 { height:58.5pt } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s41EA0776 { height:55.3pt } .s6415E78A { height:15.7pt } .sFB856575 { height:30.15pt } .s978EE78A { height:12.9pt } .s1A906575 { height:33.75pt } .s69934500 { height:33.4pt } .sF2BA6D70 { height:40.05pt } .s279C6D70 { height:42.85pt } .s39F86575 { height:37.35pt } .s10974627 { height:67.7pt } .sBDFB6575 { height:36.15pt } .s4D651073 { height:20pt } .sC53D4500 { height:34.3pt } .s75744627 { height:60.9pt } .sC5C14500 { height:34.7pt } .s31546575 { height:32.65pt } .sCA83756B { height:51.85pt } .sADA7D88E { height:61.25pt } .s1BF56575 { height:34.55pt } .s69304500 { height:33.1pt } .sEB5A64EC { height:76.6pt } .s56D85D7A { height:28.25pt } .sEAA4263B { height:28.9pt } .sAC0756B { height:54.45pt } .sADC94CD6 { height:15pt } .sF221E884 { height:82.15pt } .s1B566575 { height:34.65pt } .s995756B { height:54.95pt } .s999756B { height:53.45pt } .sF1B26D70 { height:40.85pt } .sD43B6D70 { height:41.65pt } .s28626D70 { height:49.55pt } .s77004627 { height:60.5pt } .s30D06575 { height:32.25pt } .s38515D7A { height:29.05pt } .s12EC6D70 { height:44.65pt } .sEA6F756B { height:55.85pt } .sCC0F756B { height:51.45pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s38949A25 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:8pt }       SECOND SECTION           CASE OF FELLNER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   (Application no. 13312/08 and 840 other applications)   (see list appended)             JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 11 July 2023 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 12 September 2023.       STRASBOURG   10 October 2017         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Fellner and Others v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Nebojša Vučinić, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 September 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in 841 applications (see Annex) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by nationals of States indicated in the annexed list (“the applicants”), on different dates between 4 March 2008 and 18 January 2012. 2.     The applicants were represented by Ms J. Ertürk, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     On 1 March 2016, 14 March 2016 and 26 April 2016 respectively, the applications were communicated to the Government. 4.     Further to notification made under Article 36 §   1 of the Convention and Rule 44 §   1 (a) of the Rules of Court having regard to the fact that the applicants are their nationals, the German, the Austrian, the French, the Italian, the Spanish, the British, the Belgian, the Finnish, the Greek and the Liechtenstein Governments did not make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants, whose names, dates of birth and places of residence are shown in the Appendix, were all individual small shareholders of Demirbank, a private bank in Turkey. On different dates they purchased different amounts of Turkish and German share certificates in Demirbank through the German stock market. 6.     By a decision dated 6 December 2000, the Banking Regulation and Supervision Board ( Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu – hereinafter “the Board”) decided to transfer the management and control of Demirbank to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund ( Tasarruf Mevduatı Sigorta Fonu – hereinafter “the Fund”). In its decision the Board held that the assets of Demirbank were insufficient to cover its liabilities and that the continuation of its activities would threaten the security and stability of the financial system. Accordingly, Demirbank’s management and control, and the privileges of its shareholders except for dividends, were transferred to the Fund. The Fund also confiscated all properties belonging to Demirbank. 7.     On 6 December 2000 the Board of Directors of the Fund decided to take over the shares of Demirbank in exchange for paying Demirbank’s loss corresponding to its paid-up capital, namely 275,000,000 Turkish liras (TRY). 8.     On 31 January 2001 all equities of Demirbank were removed from its account at the Istanbul Stock Exchange and were transferred to the account of the Fund. 9.     On 2 February 2001, the main shareholder of Demirbank, namely Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş., brought administrative proceedings against the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency ( Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu – hereinafter “the Agency”) before the Ankara Administrative Court, seeking a ruling setting aside the decision of 6   December 2000 to transfer Demirbank to the Fund. The Ankara Administrative Court found that it lacked jurisdiction, and transferred the case to the Supreme Administrative Court. On 5 November 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the Board’s decision of 6   December 2000, holding that the takeover had been illegal. An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the Agency were rejected on 14 April 2005 and 15 December 2005 respectively. 10.     On 20 September 2001 the Fund entered into an agreement with HSBC Bank, and sold Demirbank to the latter. Accordingly, Demirbank’s legal personality was extinguished and it was struck off the commercial register on 14 December 2001. 11.     On 20 September 2001 Ms S. Cıngıllıoğlu, the main shareholder of Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş., brought administrative proceedings against the Fund before the Ankara Administrative Court, seeking the annulment of the agreement to sell Demirbank to HSBC. On 21 April 2004 the Ankara Administrative Court annulled the agreement on the ground that the transfer of Demirbank to the Fund had been found to be illegal by the Supreme Administrative Court. An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the Fund were rejected and the decision became final on 24 February 2006. 12.     On different dates the applicants applied to the Board and claimed compensation arguing that they had lost their shares in Demirbank, as a result of its transfer to the Fund. The Board did not respond to the applicants’ claims within the statutory period. The applicants therefore applied to the administrative courts and requested the annulment of the Board’s implied rejection of their compensation claims. However, the administrative courts dismissed the applicants’ cases as out of time on the ground that they should have initiated proceedings at the latest within sixty days following 31   January 2001, the date on which Demirbank’s equities had been transferred to the Fund’s account at the Stock Exchange. The administrative courts’ decisions were upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court and thus became final. 13.     Following the annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of Demirbank to the Fund by the domestic courts in 2005, the applicants applied to the administrative courts. Relying on the restitutio in integrum principle, the applicants argued that the judgment of the court which annulled the Board’s decision dated 6 December 2000 had to be enforced and their rights as shareholders of Demirbank should be reinstated. On different dates the applicants’ requests were rejected by the administrative courts and the administrative courts’ decisions were upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the judgment regarding the annulment of the Board’s decision of 6   December 2000 could be secured by the return of the supervisory and executive rights to Demirbank’s shareholders, and did not require the restitution of the actual shares. It also maintained that even if that was the case, the judgment could not be executed, as Demirbank’s shares had ceased to exist as a result of the loss of its legal personality following its sale to HSBC. 14.     Following the annulment of the agreement to sell Demirbank to HSBC, the applicants in the applications followed by an asterisk (*) in the annexed list, brought a third set of proceedings against the Fund and claimed compensation for their lost shares in Demirbank. The Istanbul Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ compensation claims for being out of time on the ground that they should have brought their claims within sixty-day statutory time-limit after Demirbank’s equities had been transferred to the Fund’s account at the Stock Exchange on 31   January 2001. The decisions of the administrative courts were upheld, and the applicants’ requests for rectification of the decision were rejected. II.   RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 15.     A description of the domestic law may be found in the judgment of Reisner v.   Turkey (no. 46815/09, § 34, 21 July 2015). THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 16.     The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. II.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION 17.     The applicants complained that their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been violated. According to the applicants, they were illegally deprived of their shares in Demirbank and could not receive any compensation for their loss. In this connection, they relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 18.     The Government contested the applicants’ allegation. 19.     Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” A.     Admissibility 20.     The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust relevant domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 21.     In this regard the Government argued that since the applicants had not initiated proceedings within the sixty-day statutory time-limit following 31   January 2001, the date on which Demirbank’s equities had been transferred to the Fund’s account at the Stock Exchange, they could not be regarded as having duly exhausted domestic remedies in compliance with the applicable rules and procedures of domestic law. 22.     They further argued that the applicants did not bring an action before the administrative courts to have the Fund’s decision dated 6   December 2000 set aside. According to the Government, in the present applications, the interference with the applicants’ property rights occurred with the Fund’s decision of 6 December 2000 to take over the shares of Demirbank and the applicants did not lodge a complaint against this decision. They therefore invited the Court to declare the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention inadmissible for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. 23.     The applicants disagreed with the Government. 24.     The Court notes that the complaints intended to be made subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 other cases, §   72, 25   March 2014). However non-exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot be held against the applicant if, in spite of the latter’s failure to observe the forms prescribed by law, the competent authority has nevertheless examined the substance of the claim ( Vladimir Romanov v. Russia , no. 41461/02, §   52, 24 July 2008, and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §   143, ECHR 2010). 25.     The Court also reiterates that Article 35 § 1 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism and that, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required ( Kozacıoğlu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, §   40, 19   February 2009). 26.     Turning to the present cases, the Court observes that the applicants did not bring an action within sixty days following 31   January 2001, the date on which Demirbank’s equities had been transferred to the Fund’s account at the Stock Exchange, and for the same reason, their first compensation claims had been dismissed as being out of time by the domestic courts. The applicants also did not have recourse to any domestic remedy against the Fund’s decision of 6 December 2000 to take over the shares of Demirbank. Nevertheless, following the annulment of the transfer of Demirbank to the Fund by the domestic courts in 2005, the applicants initiated a fresh set of proceedings seeking the reinstatement of their shareholder rights and the domestic courts have examined the merits of their cases. 27.     In these circumstances, the Court finds that since the domestic courts have examined the substance of their complaints regarding their property rights deriving from the shares in Demirbank, the applicants could not have been expected to bring another action against the State and they thus cannot be said to have failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 28.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 29.     The applicants complained that they had been deprived of their shares in Demirbank as a result of the illegal actions of the State and that they had not been compensated for their loss. 30.     The Government firstly argued that the applicants had not had any “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as they could only submit the photocopies of their share certificates instead of the originals of them and the shares in Demirbank had no monetary value at the time when it had been taken over by the Fund. They further maintained that the interference by the public authorities in the operation of Demirbank had a legal basis in domestic law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely to maintain financial stability of the economic system and that regard must be had to all the circumstances of the cases as a whole. They therefore invited the Court to find no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 31.     The Court notes at the outset that a person who complains of a violation of his or her right to property must firstly show that such a right existed ( Pištorová v. the Czech Republic , no. 73578/01, § 38, 26 October 2004, and Zhigalev v. Russia , no. 54891/00, § 131, 6 July 2006). The Court observes in the present cases that, in order to substantiate that they had held shares in Demirbank, the applicants submitted the copies of their share certificates to the Court. Even though the Government expressed doubts about their authenticity, they did not adduce any evidence in support of their doubts, nor did they indicate any concrete reason as to why the authenticity of those documents should be questioned. In these circumstances, and bearing in mind that the applicants had already been considered as shareholders of Demirbank during the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court sees no reason to doubt the validity of the documents submitted by the applicants and rejects the Government’s objection in this respect. 32.     The Court further notes that it has recently examined a similar complaint and found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the case of Reisner v. Turkey (no. 46815/09, §§ 45-51, 21   July 2015), where it concluded that the Demirbank shares purchased on the stock market had had an economic value and thus constituted possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In that case, the Court also reiterated that the complexity of the domestic enforcement procedure or of the State budgetary system could not relieve the State of its obligation under the Convention to guarantee to everyone the right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision enforced within a reasonable time (see Burdov v. Russia (no.   2) , no.   33509/04, § 70, ECHR 2009, and Süzer and Eksen Holding A.Ş. v.   Turkey , no. 6334/05, § 116, 23 October 2012). It also noted that the applicant, whose shares had been removed from his possession on the basis of administrative actions that were subsequently found to have been unlawful, had received no compensation for his loss and had thus had to bear a disproportionate individual burden (see Reisner , cited above, §   50). 33.     The Court observes that in the present cases the applicants were all small shareholders of Demirbank and the domestic courts dismissed their respective claims based on restitutio in integrum principle on the ground, inter alia , that the restitution of their rights as shareholders had been legally impossible as, following its sale to HSBC, Demirbank had been struck off the commercial register. The Court notes that the present cases concern the same subject matter as that at issue in the case of Reisner v. Turkey (cited above) and it therefore finds no particular circumstances in the instant cases which would require it to adopt a different conclusion from the one reached in Reisner (cited above, §§   45-51). 34.     In this connection, the Court notes that the decisions to declare the takeover and sale of Demirbank unlawful had consequences for both the main shareholders and small shareholders, whether they were parties to the annulment proceedings or not. It is clear that the applicants suffered pecuniary loss, no matter how small the number of their shares. The authorities were under an obligation to compensate them for the loss, which was clearly the result of illegal administrative actions that were subsequently declared unlawful by the Supreme Administrative Court (see paragraphs   9 and 11 above). The applicants’ shares were removed from their possession on the basis of unlawful interference, yet they received no compensation for their loss and were made to bear a disproportionate individual burden. 35.     In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court holds that there has been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 36.     In the applications followed by an asterisk (*) in the annexed list, the applicants also complained of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in connection with the third set of proceedings (see paragraph 14) in that the Istanbul Administrative Court had dismissed their respective cases as being out of time and had thus deprived them of their right of access to a court. 37.     The Government contested that argument, arguing that the applicants’ cases were dismissed due to their own negligence in complying with the procedural rules of domestic law on time-limits. 38.     The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal.” 39.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 40.     The Court notes that it has already examined the same complaint and found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in its Reisner judgment (cited above, §§   52-61). In that judgment, the Court held that, having regard to the fact that the restitution of the applicant’s shares had proved to be impossible due to the sale of Demirbank to HSBC, that the sale agreement entered into by the Fund and HSBC had been annulled by a final decision on 24 February 2006 and that it would have been unreasonable to expect the applicant to lodge a compensation claim before that date, the domestic court’s strict interpretation of the time-limit had precluded a full examination of the merits of the case and impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court (ibid . , §§ 55-61). 41.     The Court has examined the present applications and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned Reisner case. 42.     The Court therefore concludes that the applicants’ right of access to court, in the third set of proceedings, has been breached and that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Damage 43.     In respect of the pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed compensation amounting to the average market value of their shares in Demirbank on 5 December 2000, the day before the taking over of Demirbank by the State. They argued in this respect that the average market value of a Demirbank share should be determined according to its trade price at the time on the Munich Stock Exchange as the applicants purchased share certificates in Demirbank through the German stock market. 44.     In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicants asked the Court to award them an amount which it would deem appropriate. 45.     The Government contested the claims. Referring to several expert reports, the Government argued that at the time when Demirbank had been taken over by the Fund, it had had no monetary value. In their view, the applicants had not suffered any pecuniary loss. They further claimed that there had been no causal link between the damage allegedly sustained by the applicants and the actions or inactions of the public authorities. 46.     The Court reiterates at the outset that a judgment in which it finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore, as far as possible, the situation existing before the breach (see Brumărescu v. Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 28342/95, § 19, ECHR 2001 ‑ I). The Contracting States that are parties to a case are in principle free to choose the means whereby they will comply with a judgment in which the Court has found a breach. This discretion as to the manner of execution of a judgment reflects the freedom of choice attaching to the primary obligation of the Contracting States, under Article 1 of the Convention, to secure the rights and freedoms guaranteed. If the nature of the breach allows restitutio in integrum , it is for the respondent State to implement it. If, however, national law does not allow – or allows only partial – reparation to be made for the consequences of the breach, Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31   October 1995, § 34, Series A no. 330-B). 47.     The Court observes that, in its judgment in the case of Reisner v.   Turkey ((just satisfaction), no. 46815/09, §§ 15-24, 1 December 2016) which had been brought before the Court by another small shareholder of Demirbank, it held that an award of compensation for his pecuniary loss was the most appropriate just satisfaction for the applicant and that the average market value of a Demirbank share on the day prior to the taking over of Demirbank, namely on 5 December 2000, in the Istanbul Stock Exchange should be taken into account when determining the applicant’s pecuniary loss. Given the fact that the applicants in the present cases are in the same situation as the applicant in Reisner v. Turkey case (cited above), the Court sees no reason to depart from that approach. 48.     In this connection, noting that the average value of one Demirbank share on 5 December 2000 was equal to 756 Turkish liras (TRL [1] at the time) according to the Istanbul Stock Exchange Market and that one German certificate was the equivalent of 500 Turkish shares (see Reisner v.   Turkey (just satisfaction), cited above, § 24), the Court finds it appropriate to award each applicant an amount of just satisfaction based on the multiplication of TRL 756 by the total number of his or her shares in Demirbank which was then updated according to the inflation calculator of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey ( http://www.tcmb.gov.tr ) and converted into euros   (EUR) in accordance with the current rates (ibid . , §§ 24-26). 49.     Accordingly, the Court awards each applicant the sum indicated in the appended table for pecuniary damage (a total sum of EUR 9,679,799.26 in respect of all the applicants). 50.     As regards the applicants’ claim for non-pecuniary damage, having regard to the facts of the present cases, the Court considers that the finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. B.     Costs and expenses 51.     The applicants claimed different amounts ranging between EUR   1,286.25 and EUR 273,335.31 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings and before the Court. They further asked the Court to award them an amount which it would deem appropriate for their lawyer’s fee during the proceedings before the Court. 52.     The Government contested the claims. 53.     According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. 54.     In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award a total sum of EUR 25,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred by the applicants. C.     Default interest 55.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the applications admissible;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present applications;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the third set of proceedings in applications followed by an asterisk (*) in the annexed list;   5.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts for pecuniary damage as indicated in the Annex (a total sum of EUR 9,679,799.26 in respect of all the applicants), and a total sum of EUR 25,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred by all the applicants in the proceedings before the Court; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;   6.     Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;   7.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 October 2017, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Hasan Bakırcı   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   Application no. and date of introduction Applicant name date of birth place of residence nationality Amount of the Applicant’s Shares (Turkish Shares) Amount of the Applicant’s Shares (German Shares) Amount of the Just Satisfaction Awarded for Pecuniary Damage (EUR)     13312/08 * 04/03/2008   Claudia Maria FELLNER 02/05/1965 Vienna Austrian - 8 000 5,893.93     13318/08 04/03/2008   Wolfgang Engelbert Johannes HOFFMEYER 10/12/1950 Zweibruchen German 252 675 1 510 1,485.1     13319/08 06/03/2008   Lisette MATTENSCHLAGER 07/12/1935 Nuremberg German 1   215 919 4 684 5,110.35     13322/08 * 04/03/2008   Thomas Rainer HIETMANN 09/02/1974 Meitingen German - 3 951 2,909.84     13325/08* 04/03/2008   Francisco Jose BERRAONDO BELZUNEGUI Pamplona Spanish 899 860 5 342 5,262.37     47886/09 * 24/08/2009   Ralph Wolfgang BRÄUCHLE 18/04/1968 Ispringen German - 2 420 1,783.33     50485/09 04/09/2009   Wolfgang EBERT 16/01/1952 Munich German - 3 700 2,726.76     53047/09 04/09/2009   Norbert BENDEL 07/02/1939 Hassfurt German   Hannelore BENDEL 01/05/1940 Hassfurt German 7   740 109 45 949 45,256.56     62285/09 11/11/2009     Horst MÜLLER 19/08/1943 Dortmund German 846 461 6 525 6,053.78   63599/09 20/11/2009   Werner Dietmar BÜHLER 04/02/1955 Oberderdingen German   Martina BUHLER 21/10/1959 Oberderdingen German 632 361 3 754 3,697.22   63600/09 20/11/2009   Hans Christian PIESCH 28/02/1960 Munich German 758 025 8 000 7,010.6   63601/09 20/11/2009   Bernd Manfred RUMP 14/09/1955 [2] Berlin German 2 062 7 936 5,848.98   63602/09 20/11/2009   Jan Christopher DEECKE 06/05/1974 Hamburg German 1   135 000 4 442 4,944.69   63603/09 20/11/2009   Michael SEIFERT 14/02/1964 Dusseldorf German - 4 985 3,671.96   63604/09 20/11/2009   Herbert REIBENSPIES 11/09/1941 Nuremberg German - 9 680 7,131.56   63648/09 20/11/2009   Achim Ludwig SAUERLAND 23/02/1942 Bremerhaven German - 3 465 2,553.28   63776/09 20/11/2009   Edmund Joseph SCHEPP 29/01/1931 Wiesbaden German 2   823 222 16 760 16,508.33   63967/09 20/11/2009   Josef POINTVOGL 06/01/1959 Landshut German - 5 200 3,831.81   65039/09 20/11/2009   Claudia MANGAJ 15/07/1969 Bensheim German - 2 420 1,783.33   65051/09 20/11/2009   Karl Michael WEISS 25/06/1974 Munich German 507 500 3 388 3,243.18   65053/09 20/11/2009   Karl Borromäus NEUSSENDORFER 28/10/1957 Pörndorf German - 4 000 2,946.96   65054/09 20/11/2009   Dieter GRASSMANN 06/02/1961 Bacharach German 1   320 350 7 830 7,714.39   65055/09 20/11/2009   Ernst Erich KULINNA 20/05/1929 Hamburg German - 12 466 9,183.83   65057/09 20/11/2009   Tomas GUERRA ITURRI 22/05/1942 Pamplona Spanish [3] 2   021 400 12 000 11,818.93   66168/09 * 11/11/2009   Reinhard Andreas Manfred NEUBERTH 19/08/1959 Zerbst German 307 430 433 771.71   66174/09 11/11/2009   Frank STROBEL 19/08/1967 Oberderdingen German 2   565 998 15 233 15,003.78   5908/10 * 20/01/2010   Mustafa CENGIZ 13/05/1966 Munich Turkish 3   146 936 29 668 26,495.2   5909/10 * 21/01/2010   Barbara Hewig SCHÜLLER 27/02/1940 Wehretal German   Georg SCHULLER 19/11/1938 Wehreta German 5   487 571 32 587 32,092.92   5913/10 * 20/01/2010   Monika RATHMACHER 10/06/1959 Rosenheim German - 4 193 3,089.14   5915/10 * 21/01/2010   Gerlinde PLOESSER 02/07/1936 Ludwigshafen German 407 649 2 185 2,210.1   5916/10 * 20/01/2010   Kornelia Lina Helene KLASSEN 26/07/1955 Bielefeld German - 8 500 6,262.37   5918/10 * 20/01/2010   Roland SCHLAAK 23/05/1947 Aalen German 1   074 500 8 369 7,749.49   5919/10 * 20/01/2010   Emil PELTZER 10/11/1950 Neudrossenfeld German 2   706 496 15 654 15,520.2   5920/10 * 20/01/2010   Klaus RODEFELD 18/10/1946 Bad Rothenfelde German - 3 000 2,210.1   6334/10 * 21/01/2010   Georg WILKE 12/07/1953 Offenbach Am Main German 4   308 500 25 585 25,197.22   6468/10 * 21/01/2010   Johann VOGEL 07/08/1933 Steinau German 856 905 5 087 5,010.85   6470/10 * 21/01/2010   Rainer WÜNSCH 21/05/1965 Kanzlei German - 7 775 5,728.28   6471/10 * 21/01/2010   Brunhilde WILDNER 13/08/1947 Barsinghausen German 724   335 4 313 4,244.94   6472/10* 21/01/2010   Konrad Johann Reinhard BRENDEL 02/10/1935 Neuburg a.d. Donau - Marienheim German 1   386 006 8 228 8,104.04   6473/10 * 21/01/2010   Martina UNTERLEITER 18/07/1966 Mannheim German 168 000 1 195 1,128.53   6474/10 * 21/01/2010   Andreas HOHLMANN 21/05/1967 Essen German - 2 756 2,030.8   6475/10 * 20/01/2010   Knut-Peter HOFFMANN 02/03/1957 Grosspösna German - 15 972 11,766.41   6477/10* 21/01/2010   Willi Ernst SAUCK 16/03/1923 Hamburg German - 15 000 11,051.01   6506/10 * 21/01/2010   Helga Karin HENLE 02/10/1939 Steingaden German 2   818 336 16   931 16,627.27   6507/10* 21/01/2010   Heinrich RUPPEL 19/01/1938 Frankfurt Am Main German   Hildegard RUPPEL 11/05/1941 Frankfurt Am Main German - 3 500 2,578.53   7003/10 * 21/01/2010   Dieter Klaus SCHMUTZLER 31/08/1945 Wandeburg German - 2 749 2,025   7340/10 26/01/2010   Valentin Josef LEIS 26/10/1929 Erkrath German - 8 107 5,971.96   7349/10 23/01/2010   Bernd Walter WINKLER 20/07/1961 Schwebheim German 1   842   500 10   949 10,782.07   7360/10 26/01/2010   Michael Klaus HAU 25/07/1971 Nuremberg German 101   000 2 800 2,212.12   7378/10 25/01/2010   Andreas GERKE 27/02/1967 Hamburg German - 2 570 1,892.42   7388/10 27/01/2010   Bernd Wilhelm Johannes HENKE 13/11/1961 Raesfeld German 303 000 1 815 1,783.33   7399/10 25/01/2010   Peter MUNGENAST 09/07/1957 Darmstadt German - 8 100 5,967.92   7404/10 * 28/01/2010   Rosanna Maria ROY 22/09/1954 Warngau - Osterwarngau German - 1 000 736.61   7411/10 25/01/2010   Otto Walter Hermann Friedrich Dietrich DUENSING 20/09/1951 Neustadt German - 12 000 8,840.9   7421/10 * 28/01/2010   Torsten GÖBNER 28/03/1969 Frankenthal German 4   327 010 24 339 24,306.56   7427/10 25/01/2010   Jan FREUND 01/04/1975 Berlin German 389 119 3 610 3,233.33   7568/10 26/01/2010   Harald KAPFHAMMER 13/04/1968 Munich German - 4 840 3,566.66   7569/10 26/01/2010   Arndt KREMER 17/06/1968 Remscheid German 1   676 473 1 500 3,574.49   7570/10 26/01/2010   Andreas KAUS 09/06/1960 Ahrensburg German   Michaela Kerstin KAUS 03/11/1967 Ahrensburg German - 3 461 2,549.24   7571/10 26/01/2010   Christoph SCHUH 27/04/1955 Nuremberg German 11   238 852 6 420 21,289.39   7572/10 26/01/2010   Peter Michael MÄDEL 05/04/1941 Hüllhorst German - 15   000 11,051.01   7573/10 26/01/2010   Lothar Heinz THIELE 28/08/1949 Oberhausen German - 15 858 11,682.57   7574/10 26/01/2010   Ralf LAUNER 06/10/1943 Ammersbek German 714 500 4 171 4,126.01   7704/10 27/01/2010   Bernd Udo Eduard STOWASSER 12/06/1956 Eichstaett German 2   142 500 12 705 12,516.66   7714/10 27/01/2010   Ludger Arnold KAMPHAUS 14/03/1964 Dinklage German - 4 215 3,104.79   7720/10 26/01/2010   Karl Anton BÜRKLE 04/12/1960 Helmond German - 3 872 2,853.28   7726/10 26/01/2010   Allen Amadeus BOGARTS 23/07/1947 Berlin German - 30 000 22,102.02   7909/10 26/01/2010   Jörg CORNELIUS 06/03/1968 Rostock German - 10 000 7,367.42   7920/10 26/01/2010   Hans Karl Georg LABUDE 16/11/1935 Sulingen German 5   329 758 36 656 34,858.58   7922/10 26/01/2010   Erik Emiel STEUKERS 22/06/1942 Bergisch Gladbach Belgian 1   502 500 - 2,214.14   7924/10 26/01/2010   PARSETA INVESTMENTS LTD Gibraltar British - 44 109 32,496.21   7926/10 26/01/2010   Bernhard ULLRICH 11/09/1967 Wuezburg German - 30 000 22,102.02   7928/10 * 28/01/2010   Peter Michael Adolf SAAM 07/09/1963 Heroldsbach German 144 000 854 841.91   7933/10 26/01/2010   Dieter Klaus DETTINGER 26/04/1951 Altdorf German - 13 880 10,226.51   7937/10 26/01/2010   Heinz Bruno RACHOW 23/06/1937 Berlin German   Gerda Gisela RACHOW 14/09/1939 Berlin German 673 800 40 667 30,954.54   7940/10 26/01/2010   Reinhard KREIDL 19/02/1943 Asslar German 16   731 194 7 745 30,358.33   7946/10 26/01/2010   Hans Hermann MENSENDIEK 16/04/1936 Bielefeld German 1   715 500 10 186 10,031.81   7950/10 26/01/2010   Carsten HARMS 30/05/1969 Cologne German 2   499 500 15 909 15,403.28   7954/10 26/01/2010   Peter Karl Ludwig HEIL 16/01/1944 Bad Soden-Salmünster German 2   252 500 13 370 13,169.69   7957/10 26/01/2010   Jörg-Rainer VOIGT 03/01/1942 Neuried German 1   117 649 5 000 5,330.55   7959/10 27/01/2010   Manuel DEVESA MEZQUITA 18/09/1954 Dusseldorf Spanish - 5 832 4,295.7   7994/10 * 20/01/2010   Anton Josef LEYENDECKER 11/07/1956 Remscheid German 1   014 069 6 034 5,938.63   7999/10 * 21/01/2010   Andreas Norbert ASSUM 01/12/1968 Cologne German - 3 835 2,826.01   8003/10 * 21/01/2010   Axel STEINHAUSER 05/06/1959 Munich German 807 887 4 796 4,724.49   8006/10 * 21/01/2010   Walter Robert FEIERLEIN 03/07/1960 Munich German 500 1 926 1,418.93   8026/10 * 21/01/2010   Manfred KIMPEL 05/05/1951 Gertshofen German 6   903 081 46 980 44,783.08   8027/10 * 21/01/2010   Gertrud GREDE 24/06/1948 Hanau German   Jan GREDE 05/08/1982 [4] Hanau German - 13 431 9,895.2   8030/10 * 21/01/2010   Norbert GROSSBERGER 10/04/1964 Windsbach German - 2 000 1,473.48   8037/10 * 21/01/2010   Andreas Joachim KLINTWORTH 06/03/1962 Sittensen German 2   423 490 9 659 10,686.61   8043/10 * 21/01/2010   Rolf Adolf SIEGER 09/02/1945 Langen German - 6 000 4,420.45   8074/10 27/01/2010   Ottmar Josef GOLLING 29/10/1945 Hollenbach German 4   331 187 25 712 25,325.75   8082/10 27/01/2010   Karl-Heinz MÖWES 27/05/1952 Sinzing German 611 474 3 630 3,574.49   8087/10 27/01/2010   Abidin ÇUKURLU 30/04/1957 Munich Turkish 1   852 950 11 000 10,834.59   8091/10 27/01/2010   Jürgen Günter HÖRNING 24/09/1965 Erlangen German 3   467 922 5 000 8,793.93   8094/10 28/01/2010   Dirk MICHEL 20/11/1970 Maintal German 282 500 1 677 1,650.75   8102/10 * 28/01/2010   Andre Gregor MÜLLER 02/06/1977 Villingen-Schwenningen German - 3 852 2,837.87   8110/10 28/01/2010   Hanım YEDIGÖL 15/02/1938 Celle Turkish - 19 386 14,282.57   8113/10 * 27/01/2010   Ingrid DITTMANN 27/12/1928 Wiesbaden German 497 769 2 955 2,909.84   8115/10 28/01/2010   Ole WILKEN 24/07/1993 Oldenburg German 875 940 5 200 5,121.96              8116/10 * 28/01/2010   Dirk RÜPING 14/02/1956 Neuss German 1   245 856 7 396 7,285.6              8431/10 01/02/2010   Hermann HEINL 28/05/1953 Bruckmühl German 1   208 000 10 584 9,577.52              8438/10 01/02/2010   Hans-Jürgen Albert BOLZ 19/12/1957 Flörsheim German - 1 926 1,418.93              8444/10 01/02/2010   Thorsten GERDAU 27/01/1967 Lohmar German 168 450 1 500 1,352.52              8446/10 * 01/02/2010   Matthias MANN 13/03/1959 Berlin German - 2 000 1,473.48              8451/10 * 01/02/2010   Attila VERES 01/04/1970 Hamburg German 321 907 2 106 2,025              8453/10 * 01/02/2010   Karl STÖCKL 03/09/1950 Österreich German - 13 000 9,577.52              8461/10 01/02/2010   Frank OBERLAENDER 27/12/1962 [5] Bonn - Bad Godesberg German 1   593 368 9 459 9,316.41              8464/10 01/02/2010   Christoph Hubertus SCHADE 30/10/1963 Baden-Württenberg German 687 276 4 080 4,018.93              8467/10 01/02/2010   Jörg Holger FISCHER 29/01/1970 Munich German - 1 800 1,325.25              8472/10 * 01/02/2010   Frank-Torsten MÜLLER 26/10/1965 Gotha German - 2 000 1,473.48              8477/10 * 01/02/2010   Marcus Franz Karl THEUER 03/08/1967 Dortmund German 300 6 670 4,913.63              8478/10 * 01/02/2010   Sabine LOCHNER 13/08/1980 Hammelburg German - 2 400 1,767.67              8481/10 01/02/2010   Barbian WERNER MATTHIAS 22/07/1957 Wadern German 603 051 3 599 3,539.39              8483/10 01/02/2010   Volkmar Edwin STERNBERGER 25/08/1962 Oberdingen German 856 905 8 807 7,751.26              8486/10 01/02/2010   Ulrich Dietmar STEIN 19/08/1956 Ratekau German - 10 000 7,367.42              8488/10 * 01/02/2010   Rolf HIRSCHMANN 22/02/1942 Berlin German - 42 500 31,311.36              8489/10 01/02/2010   Ludwig Johann RAUCH 15/01/1940 Wackersdorf German - 3 088 2,274.49              8882/10 01/02/2010   Karl Friedrich Waldemar SPONSEL 08/06/1936 Schweinfurt German 244 589 1 452 1,430.55              9409/10 * 26/01/2010   Wolfgang Jürgen DOMNICK 26/03/1969 Kornwestheim German - 6 671 4,913.13              10819/10 * 10/02/2010   Alfons Thomas BUCHNER 07/01/1931 Straubing German 1   282 076 7 607 7,493.93              11163/10 13/02/2010   Heinz Dieter Karl Reinhold WITTE 29/11/1948 Hilter German 3   635 086 21 579 21,254.29              11169/10 13/02/2010   Bernd WEFELSCHEID 10/10/1949 Koblenz German 1   686 533 1 509 3,595.95              11178/10 13/02/2010   Walter Josef HIERMER 14/02/1955 Gemeinde Bodenkirchen German - 311 000 229,125              11184/10 13/02/2010   Helga ROHDE BAUER 16/03/1943 Greiz German - 1 524 1,122.72              11191/10 13/02/2010   Ferdinand Kilian Alfred SAUER 27/12/1948 Hösbach German 1   684 500 10 000 9,848.48              11196/10 13/02/2010   Dieter TESCHING 18/01/1940 Oberderdingen German   Hannelore TESCHING 22/06/1940 Oberderdingen German 1   997 311 16 857 15,362.37              11202/10 13/02/2010   Andreas Wolfgang HEINR