CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 29 mai 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7F95B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s780D430E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Interim Resolution DH (2000) 84 Human Rights Application No. 22907/93 Atatür and Pamir against Turkey   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 May 2000 at the 709th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the report drawn up on 9 September 1999 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 8   September 1993 by Turkish nationals, Mr Abdurrahman Atatür, Mr Mehmet Kutsat Atatür and Ms   Hatice Sevin Pamir, against Turkey; Whereas on 14 October 1999 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article   32, paragraph   1, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights pursuant to Article   48 of the Convention; Whereas in their application, declared admissible by the Commission on 15 April 1996, the applicants complained of the authorities’ delay in paying additional compensation for compulsory purchase of the applicants’ land as well as of the insufficiency of the statutory default interest (30%) intended to compensate for the loss caused by the high level of monetary depreciation; Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1; Whereas at the 709th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 29 May 2000, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1, Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case; Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.