CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 18 juillet 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s6401109A { width:12.5%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6EE74102 { width:12.5%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1C01E1E5 { width:12.5%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD0B10F22 { width:12.5%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1248679 { width:12.5%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF0B09B19 { width:12.5%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s14D896DE { width:12.5%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB0871C96 { width:12.5%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5617B806 { width:12.5%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Resolution ResDH(2005)76 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights delivered between 8   January   2004 and 19   May   2004 (final between 8   April   2004 and 19   May   2004) in 3 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 18 July 2005 at the 933rd 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 the 3 cases details of which appear in the appendix to this resolution, delivered between 8   January   2004 and 19   May   2004 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the cases originated in applications against Turkey, lodged under the terms of former Article 25 of the Convention with the European Commission or, under the terms of Article 34, before the European Court of Human Rights between 9   July   1998 and 24   June   1999 by several Turkish nationals, and that the Court declared admissible the complaints concerning the violation of the applicants' right to respect for their property on account of the administration's delay in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the difference between the applicable rate of default interest and the average rate of inflation;   Recalling that the Court also declared admissible the complaints relating to the violation of the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life as well as the absence of an effective remedy in the Çakmak case; and also the complaint relating to the discriminatory treatment of the applicants due to the difference between the interest rates applicable to state debts as compared to that applicable to sums owed to the state in the Cıbır case, but that the Court had not considered it necessary to examine them separately in the light of its findings with regard to the right to respect of property;   Whereas in its judgments delivered between 8   January   2004 and 19   May   2004 concerning these cases the Court unanimously held inter alia :   - that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;   - 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 set out in the appendix, to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and that simple interest at an annual rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points would be payable on those sums 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 delivered between 8   January   2004 and 19   May   2004, 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 violations of the same kind (see Resolutions ResDH(2001)70 and ResDH(2001)71 in the cases Aka and Akkuş against Turkey, respectively), 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 Court's judgments had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that on the dates indicated in the appendix, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in these judgments,   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 these cases.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2005)76   Details of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants   Case Application Date of the judgment Final on Non pecuniary damage Pecuniary damages Costs Date of payment GÜCLÜ Mustafa and Others 42670/98 08/01/04 08/04/04 3   000 € 2   500 € 600 € 09/07/04* ÇAKMAK Mehmet Salih and ÇAKMAK Abdülsamet 45630/99 29/04/04 29/07/04 - 1   250 € 500 € 27/10/04 CIBIR Adil 49659/99 19/05/04 19/08/04 - 1   400 € 300 € 19/11/04 *Payment made one day after the payment deadline, which is considered as minimum delay.