CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 6 janvier 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } Final Resolution ResDH(2003)178 Human Rights Application No. 22907/93 A. and M.K. Atatür and H.S. Pamir against Turkey   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 January 2004 at the 863rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article   32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to Interim Resolution DH(2000)84, adopted on 29 May 2000 in the case of A. and M.K. Atatür and H.S. Pamir against Turkey, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1, of the Convention on account of the administration’s delay in paying additional compensation awarded by the domestic courts for the expropriation of the applicants’ properties and due to the loss of value this caused as a result of the substantial difference between the default interest rate applicable at the time and the average rate of inflation in Turkey, and to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the special Committee of Advisers to assist the Committee of Ministers with the question of just satisfaction after the expiry of the mandate of the European Commission of Human Rights, proposals supplemented by letter of the President of the special Committee dated 9 April 2001;   Whereas at the 757th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the special Committee’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 26 June 2001, in accordance with former Article   32, paragraph   2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants as just satisfaction, within three months, 20 000 French Francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 2 696 743 French Francs in respect of pecuniary damage and 15 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 2 731 743 French francs, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicants;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 29 May 2000 and 26 June 2001, having regard to Turkey’s obligation under former Article   32, paragraph   4, of the Convention to abide by them;   Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as that found in this case, in particular through the entry into force on 1 January 2000 of Law No. 4489, which brought the statutory rate of default interest into line with the annual rediscount rate applied by the Turkish Central Bank to short-term debts (the latter rate is fixed and permanently reviewed, taking into account particularly the country’s inflation rate), and indicated that the Commission’s report as well as the Committee of Ministers’ decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 6 September 2001, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the total sum of 2   731   743 French francs as just satisfaction,   Declares, after having examined the measures taken by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case.