CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 juillet 1997

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; 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 1997 Akkuş v. Turkey - 19263/92 Judgment 9.7.1997 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Depreciation through inflation of additional compensation for expropriation caused by authorities’ delay in payment: violation [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.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.   Non-compliance with six-month time-limit Complaint was concerned solely with national authorities’ delay in paying additional compensation and damage sustained by applicant as a result - applicant could not have made complaint until sometime had elapsed after final judgment of Court of Cassation. Conclusion : objection dismissed (eight votes to one). B.   Failure to exhaust domestic remedies Objection not raised before Commission and Government estopped from relying on it. Conclusion : objection dismissed (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 Situation of which applicant complained concerned her “entitle[ment] to the peaceful enjoyment of [her] possessions” - Court had to examine terms and conditions on which compensation was payable under domestic legislation and manner in which they had been applied in applicant’s case. Additional compensation plus interest at rate of 30% per annum was paid to applicant seventeen months after Court of Cassation’s judgment at a time when inflation rates in Turkey had reached 70% per annum. That difference – due solely to delay on part of authorities – between value of applicant’s compensation as finally determined by Court of Cassation and its value when actually paid had caused applicant to sustain separate loss in addition to loss deriving from expropriation of her land. By deferring payment of compensation for seventeen months, national authorities had rendered the compensation inadequate. Conclusion : violation (seven votes to two). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: applicant entitled to reimbursement of difference between amount actually paid and depreciation of sum due to her over a period of at least fourteen months. B.   Non pecuniary damage: compensation awarded. C.   Costs and expenses: awarded on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to applicant (seven votes to two).   © 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