CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mai 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 130 May 2010 Düzdemir and Güner v. Turkey - 25952/03 and 25966/03 Judgment 27.5.2010 [Section II] Article 34 Victim Intervening domestic friendly settlement for payment of judgment debt following substantial delays in payment: victim status upheld   Facts – The applicants obtained final judgment debts against their employer, a municipality, after being laid off. Several years later, after the applicants had complained to the European Court, the municipality entered into friendly-settlement agreements with them and paid the outstanding amounts. Notwithstanding those agreements, the applicants claimed compensation in the proceedings before the Court for pecuniary damage equal to the return on investment they would have received had they been paid promptly and for non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the delays in payment. The Government argued that the agreements had resolved the matter before the Court and that the applicants had therefore lost their victim status. Law (a)     Admissibility : Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 – Although the friendly-settlement agreements with the municipality stipulated that the applicants waived any outstanding claims to compensation, rights and other credits against the payment of certain lump sums, they covered only claims under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The “matter” which had been resolved, therefore, was solely the “deprivation of property” complaint. The payment of the outstanding amounts had not remedied the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention concerning crucial employment issues caused by the authorities’ protracted failure to execute the domestic judgments. Accordingly, the friendly-settlement agreements had deprived the applicants of victim status only in respect of the Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 complaint and the complaint under Article 6 §   1 was admissible. Conclusion : admissible under Article 6 § 1 (unanimously); inadmissible under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (unanimously). (b)     Merits : Article 6 § 1 – The Court held that, by failing for several years to take the necessary measures to comply with final judicial decisions, the authorities had deprived the provisions of Article 6 §   1 of most of their useful effect. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 6,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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