CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 juillet 1998

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. July 1998 Menteş and Others v. Turkey (just satisfaction) - 23186/94 Judgment 24.7.1998 [GC] Article 41 Non-pecuniary damage Pecuniary damage First three applicants’ claims for just satisfaction in respect of Court’s findings of violations of Articles   8 and   13 [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   PECUNIARY DAMAGE Court not prevented from making an award for pecuniary damage, although applicants had limited their complaint to Article 8 of the Convention and no ruling had been made as to whether the matter had also given rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions). While applicants sought global amounts without substantiating their claims as to the quantity and value of their losses with any documentary or other evidence, Court accepted that, because of the destruction of family records during the burning of the houses and the security situation in the area in question, they had been faced with particular difficulties in adducing evidence to support their claims – in assessing the pecuniary damage, Court took into account, as far as appropriate, estimates provided by Government and awards made in the previous judgments in comparable cases concerning Turkey. Awards made in respect of first three applicants’ houses, household property, agricultural machinery of one applicant and livestock and feed of two applicants. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to first three applicants (fifteen votes to four). II.   NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE Having regard to the seriousness of the violations found, an award should be made. Claims for punitive and aggravated damages rejected. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to first three applicants (fifteen votes to four). III.   REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF RIGHTS This was a matter for the Committee of Ministers under Article 54 of the Convention. Conclusion : claim dismissed (unanimously).   © 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