CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 décembre 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 202 December 2016 Reisner v. Turkey (just satisfaction) - 46815/09 Judgment 1.12.2016 [Section II] Article 41 Just satisfaction Pecuniary damage incurred by the applicant shareholder as a result of the unlawful takeover of a bank Facts – In a judgment* delivered on 21   July 2015 the Court held, unanimously, that there had been violations of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and Article   6 of the Convention after finding that the applicant, as a shareholder, had been made to bear a disproportionate individual burden as a result of the unlawful takeover of Demirbank by the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund. The question of just satisfaction under Article   41 was reserved. Law – Article 41: In view of the considerable difference between the parties’ submissions, in order to determine pecuniary compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant, the Court had to come to its own conclusions, on the basis of the documents in the file and the submissions of the parties. The Government had alleged that the applicant had suffered no pecuniary damage because the book value of the bank was negative when it was taken over. The Court noted that the market value and the book value of a company could vary considerably. While the market value concerned the value of a company on the stock exchange, the book value pertained to the net asset value of a company, which was determined by subtracting liabilities from its total assets. The Court observed that the applicant, as a minor shareholder, had no involvement in the management of the bank and was not responsible for its debts. In such circumstances, the book value was not the correct basis to rely on when calculating the applicant’s pecuniary loss. It was clear that a day prior to the takeover, the bank’s shares had a certain monetary value. It was the average market value of a share on that date that was to be taken into account when determining the pecuniary loss. Conclusion : EUR 514 in respect of pecuniary damage; finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage (unanimously). (See also Brumărescu v.   Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], 28342/95, 23   January 2001, Information Note   26 ; and Papamichalopoulos and Others v.   Greece (Article   50), 14556/89 , 31   October 1995) *   See Reisner v. Turkey , 46815/09 , 21   July 2015.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes