CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 6 janvier 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sE07C74DA { border:1.5pt double #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7C35CBBD { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s9A734C56 { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBF10AB1 { border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A08084E { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s4CCA2433 { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s2AB3D1C6 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B8DC3B3 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sCE97D62E { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sC18575F0 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sA6524EF { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E7C0AC9 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sAAECE211 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } Resolution ResDH(2003)181 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 March 2002 (final on 28 June 2002) in 6 cases against Turkey (see Appendix) concerning the administration’s delay in payment of additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 January 2004 at the 863rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 6 cases, details of which appear in the appendix to this resolution, delivered on 28 March 2002 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that these cases originated in applications against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 August 1991 and on 4 May 1992 under former Article 25 of the Convention by 6 Turkish nationals, and that the Court, seised of the cases under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints that there had been a breach of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the administration’s delay in paying additional compensation awarded by the domestic courts for the expropriation of the applicants’ properties and due to the loss of value this caused as a result of the substantial difference between the default interest rate applicable at the time and the average rate of inflation in Turkey;   Whereas in its judgments of 28 March 2002 concerning these cases the Court, unanimously:   - held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;   - held that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   - held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months from the date at which the judgments became final, the amounts of just satisfaction (for details see the table appended to the present resolution) awarded in euros to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of settlement, and that simple interest at an annual rate of 4,26% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   - dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgments of 28 March 2002, having regard to Turkey’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;   Whereas during the examination of the cases by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new, similar violations (see Resolutions ResDH(2001)70 and ResDH(2001)71 in the cases Aka and Akkuş against Turkey, respectively), notably through the entry into force on 1 January 2000 of Law No. 4489, which brought the statutory rate of default interest into line with the annual rediscount rate applied by the Turkish Central Bank to short-term debts (the latter rate is fixed and permanently reviewed, taking into account particularly the country’s inflation rate), and indicated that the Court’s judgments had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that on 10 July 2002, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgments of 28 March 2002,   Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2003)181   Details of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants:     Case Application No. Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and Expenses   Total   Dudu Çalkan 19660/92 18 400 euros - 330 euros 18 700 euros Mehmet Çelebi (No. 2) 20140/92   7 750 euros 1 100 euros 330 euros   9 180 euros Adile Kartal 20144/92   9 100 euros 1 100 euros 330 euros 10 530 euros Ahmet Öztürk 20151/92 36 400 euros 1 100 euros 330 euros 37 830 euros Mehmet Özen 20152/92 24 600 euros 1 100 euros 330 euros 26 030 euros Aziz Şen (No. 2) 20155/92   4 200 euros - 330 euros   4 500 euros