CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 avril 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } Resolution ResDH(2005)40 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 June 2003 (Friendly settlement) in the case of Hattatoğlu against Turkey   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 April 2005 at the 922nd 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 final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Hattatoğlu case delivered on 26 June 2003 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 37094/97) against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 April 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Ms Zeynep Dilek Hattatoğlu and Mr   Murat Bülent Hattatoğlu, two Turkish nationals, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint 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 for expropriation of the applicants' property and the difference between the default interest rate applicable at the time to the debts owed to the state and the average rate of inflation in Turkey;   Whereas in its judgment of 26 June 2003 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties' undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;   Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Turkey would pay the applicants, the sum of 92   500 euros, 46   250 euros to be paid within three months from the delivery of the judgment and 46   250 euros to be paid within six months from the delivery of the judgment;   Recalling that Rule 43, paragraph 3, of the Rules of the Court (former Article 44, paragraph 2) provides that the striking-out of a case which has been declared admissible shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance, friendly settlement or solution of the matter; Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that on 29 September 2003, on 16 March 2004 and on 30 November 2004 the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sum provided in the friendly settlement,   Recalling that, as regards the applicants' complaint declared admissible in this case, measures had already been taken to prevent possible violations of the Convention arising from this kind of complaint, in particular 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, (see Resolutions DH(2001)70 and DH(2001)71 in, respectively, the cases of Aka and Akkuş against Turkey);   Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention.