CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sE07C74DA { border:1.5pt double #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7C35CBBD { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s9A734C56 { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBF10AB1 { border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B8DC3B3 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sCE97D62E { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sC18575F0 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sA6524EF { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E7C0AC9 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sAAECE211 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } Resolution ResDH(2003)183 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 October 2002 (final on 10 January 2003) in 2 cases against Turkey (see Appendix) concerning the administration’s delay in payment of additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest   (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 Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 2 cases, details of which appear in the appendix to this resolution, delivered on 10 October 2002 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that these cases originated in two applications against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 May 1992 under former Article 25 of the Convention by 2 Turkish nationals, and that the Court, seised of the cases under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints that there had been a breach of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to 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;   Whereas in its judgments of 10 October 2002 concerning these cases the Court, unanimously:   - held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;   - held that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   - held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months from the date at which the judgments became final, the amounts of just satisfaction (for details see the table appended to the present resolution) awarded in euros to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of settlement, and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   - dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgments of 10 October 2002, having regard to Turkey’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;   Whereas during the examination of the cases by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new, similar violations (see Resolutions ResDH(2001)70 and ResDH(2001)71 in the cases Aka and Akkuş against Turkey, respectively), notably 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 Court’s judgments had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that on 25 February 2003, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgments of 10 October 2002,   Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2003)183   Details of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants:     Case Application No. Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total   Mehmet Çelebi (No. 3) 20139/92 5 430 euros 1 100 euros 300 euros 6 830 euros Ince 20143/92 7 800 euros - 300 euros 8 100 euros