CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 mai 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   415 26.05.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ÜNAL AKPINAR İNŞAAT İMALAT SANAYİ VE TİCARET S.A. AND AKPINAR YAPI SANAYİ S.A. v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ünal Akpinar İnşaat İmalat Sanayi Ve Ticaret S.A. and Akpinar Yapi Sanayi S.A. v. Turkey (application no. 41246/98) concerning a dispute between the applicant companies and the Turkish Water Board about an aqueduct construction project.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision and reserved judgment on that point. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   1.     Principal facts   Ünal Akpınar İnşaat İmalat Sanayi ve Ticaret S.A. and Akpınar Yapı Sanayi S.A., are two joint stock companies incorporated under Turkish law.   In July 1981 the Turkish Water Board, an administrative body responsible to the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, put out a public call for tenders for the construction of the Şanlıurfa aqueduct, part of the South-East Anatolia Economic Development Project ( GAP – Güneydoğu Anadolu Kalkınma Projesi ). A contract was then signed between the Water Board and the applicant companies.   A few years later the companies broke off the work, arguing that the terms of the contract no longer reflected the unforeseeable economic changes that had taken place since it was signed. In the context of proceedings they brought against the Water Board for sums owed and damages, the Turkish courts gave a number of rulings awarding various sums to the applicant companies. Final judgment was given on 30 December 2004.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 May 1998 and declared partly admissible on 29 April 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants submitted that the rulings whereby the courts had awarded them certain sums of money had each in turn become final. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they alleged that the Water Board had waited until the final termination of the proceedings before paying them a derisory sum which could not compensate them for the losses caused by inflation and the fluctuation of the exchange rates. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they further complained of the unfairness and excessive length of the civil proceedings they had had to bring to recover the sums they were owed.   Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had been finally terminated by a judgment of 30 December 2004. Consequently, in January 2006, that is, more than 14 years after being served with a first notice to pay, the Water Board paid the applicants, in respect of their claims, a total of 288,446.89 Turkish liras (TRY), the approximate equivalent of 133,475   euros   (EUR). Although that compensation in that amount could be considered to have been appropriate and to have been paid within a reasonable time, the Court took the view that the same was not true of three other sums awarded to the two companies in the final judgment.   Indeed, the various aspects of domestic law which protected the Water Board against enforcement proceedings or which made exceptional provision for challenges to judicial decisions upheld by the Court of Cassation were not capable of justifying the lack of diligence shown by the Turkish State in the present case in discharging its obligations to the applicants, especially as, by virtue of its special prerogatives as a State body, the Water Board did not lack resources to ensure repayment of any sums disbursed unduly.   In particular the applicants should not have been obliged to make use of judicial or administrative proceedings to recover what they were owed, especially as they had to run the risk of loss through delays in those proceedings. The appropriateness of the compensation they were awarded had decreased significantly on account of the delay in settling the debt, and the companies had been placed in a situation of uncertainty, given that the arrangements for payment disregarded economic factors – including in particular monetary depreciation in Turkey – which aggravated the loss they had sustained.   In that connection, the Court observed that on a number of occasions it had ruled that the adequacy of compensation was diminished if its payment did not take into account factors likely to reduce its value. Admittedly, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could not be taken to mean that States were obliged to take measures to make good the effects of inflation and maintain the value of debts or other assets. The present case, however, called for special treatment, in that the depreciation of the sums owed was heavily aggravated by the fact that the applicants, having been prevented from enjoying immediately the benefit of the final provisions of the judgments in their favour, were compelled to accept unjustified delays of five or in one case seven years to recover debts which, at the time when they were settled, were worth scarcely one per cent of what they should have been worth. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 6 § 1   The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 6 § 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.