CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 28 février 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sF004B676 { 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 } .sB30C44B0 { 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 } .s2342A031 { 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 } .s546C9D04 { 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 } .s4F2EDFF { 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)17 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 13 cases (see Appendix) concerning the administration’s delay in payment of additional compensation for expropriation against Turkey   (Applications No. (see Appendix), judgments of 21 July 2005, final on 30 November 2005)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments in these cases, transmitted once they had become final   by the Court to the Committee on 30   November 2005, and since, at this date, the applicants were informed that their requests for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber had been dismissed;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns delays in payment of additional compensation for expropriation and insufficient applicable rate of default interest (violation of Article 1, Protocol No. 1);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Turkey’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing, similar violations;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect;   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;   Recalling that no individual measure is necessary and that, the European Court did not awarded any just satisfaction in respect of Article 41 for the pecuniary damage sustained;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and DECIDES to close their examination. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)17     Details of cases   Application No. Name 28171/02 Fadıl YILMAZ 28176/02 Mustafa and Mehmet TOPRAK 28177/02 Mustafa TOPRAK (No. 1) 28178/02 Mustafa TOPRAK (No. 2) 28182/02 Mehmet YİĞİT (No. 2) 28183/02 Hüseyin YİĞİT 28184/02 Mehmet YIGIT (No. 3) 28185/02 Mehmet YİĞİT (No. 4) 28186/02 Salih YİĞİT (No. 1) 28187/02 Salih YİĞİT (No. 2) 28188/02 Mehmet YİĞİT (No. 5) 28190/02 Mehmet Sait KENDIRCI 28192/02 Seyit Ahmet ÖZDEMIR and others       [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 February 2007 at the 987th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies