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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Resolution ResDH(2003)187 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 March 2002 (Friendly settlement) in the case of İ.S. 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 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 final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the İ.S. case delivered on 28   March 2002 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 38931/97) against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 November 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr İ.S., a Turkish national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint that there had been a breach of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the administration’s delay in paying additional compensation awarded by the domestic courts for the expropriation of the applicant’s 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 judgment of 28 March 2002 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;   Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Turkey would pay the applicant the total sum of 10 000 American dollars within three months as from the notification of the judgment;   Recalling that Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that the striking-out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention; Whereas, in this connection, the government of the respondent state has already taken measures 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);   Having satisfied itself that on 26 June 2002, within the expiry of the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment,   Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.