CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 juin 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 } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .sAF55C774 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { 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 } .s7EECFA37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)98 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights I.R.S and others against Turkey   (Application No. 26338/95, judgment of 20 July 2004 (judgment on just satisfaction of 31 May 2005), final on 15 December 2004 (judgment on just satisfaction final on 31 August 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 “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicants' inability to obtain compensation following the occupation of their land for purposes of public use without expropriation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, see details in Appendix);   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 judgment;   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;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, 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   - of general measures preventing similar violations,   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)98   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of I.R.S and Others against Turkey     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the fact that the applicants could not obtain compensation for the loss of title to their property, as Article 38 of Law on Expropriation of 4 November 1983, in force at the material time, provided that claims for the restitution of property occupied for purposes of public use lapse 20 years after occupation. In 1993 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance cancelled the applicants' registration as owners of the property and ordered its transfer to the Treasury on the grounds of uninterrupted possession by the Air Force since 1955. The Court noted in particular that once Article 38 had entered into force, the applicants could claim neither restitution nor compensation since the time-limit fixed by Article 38 had expired (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total EUR 255,346 - EUR 5,000 EUR 260,346 Paid on 29/11/2005   b) Individual measures   In view of the compensation awarded by the Court for pecuniary damages suffered by the applicants, no further individual measure is needed.     II.   General measures   In a decision of April 2003 the Turkish Constitutional Court declared Article 38 of the Law on Expropriation unconstitutional on the grounds that its application was not in conformity with the principle of the rule of law and that it violated the requirements of the Convention. As a result this provision is null and void.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46 paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 June 2007 at the 997th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.