CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 juin 2019

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B53EBCC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .s45C8AC8B { width:146.42pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 78671/14 Durmuş GÖKNAR against Turkey and 5 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   June 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Julia Laffranque, President,   Ivana Jelić,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, 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 declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 14 January 2019 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr A. Aktay and Mr U.Ç. Aktay, lawyers practising in Mersin. 3.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 4.     The applicants complained, in particular, of the financial loss they had suffered as a result of late payment of the expropriation compensations awarded to them by the domestic courts. 5.     On 19 October 2017 the complaint concerning Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. 6.     After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 14   January 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. 7.     The Government acknowledged that the failure of the domestic courts to apply any default interest to the respective compensation amounts constituted an excessive burden on the applicants and breached their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in the light of the Court’s case-law in   Dökmeci v. Turkey (no. 74155/14, 6 December 2016). They undertook to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. These sums will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. The Government further requested the Court to strike out the applications. 8.     On 12 March 2019 the Court received letters from the applicants informing the Court that they had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. THE LAW 9.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 10.     The Court finds that following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. 11.     It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications. 12.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 4 July 2019.   Hasan Bakırcı   Julia Laffranque   Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth     Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per application (in euros) [1]     78671/14 05/12/2014   Durmuş GÖKNAR 01/03/1959   1,453     20789/15 22/04/2015   Dürüye ERSOY 26/01/1951   473     21024/15 25/04/2015   Mustafa TOPAK 02/12/1960   399     34924/15 11/07/2015   Necip DAĞAŞAN 10/05/1969   Sultan ÖZMEN 10/10/1974   Orhan DAĞAŞAN 28/07/1977 Antalya   Hüseyin DAĞAŞAN 10/10/1971   Musa DAĞAŞAN 01/10/1941   1,173     36844/15 14/07/2015   Sultan BİLGİN 17/12/1958   8,496     40477/15 01/08/2015   Hüseyin KAVLAK 15/04/1946   495     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.