THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33902/02
by Abdurrahman ŞAHİN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 October 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrR. Türmen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 July 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Abdurrahman Şahin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Kahta. He was represented before the Court by Ms R. Bozan, a lawyer practising in Kahta.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date the Kahta Municipality expropriated the plots of land belonging to the applicant.
On 10 March 2000 the applicant brought an action for additional compensation before the Kahta Civil Court of First Instance against the Municipality.
On 14 June 2000 the Civil Court awarded the applicant additional compensation of 13,858,852,311 Turkish liras, plus interest at the statutory rate running from the date of the court’s decision.
On 15 January 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
On 26 May 2005 the applicant’s representative and the Kahta Municipality signed a protocol by which the Municipality declared that 18,500 new Turkish liras be paid to the applicant and the applicant declared that no claim or credit remained in favour of him. Accordingly, on 15 June 2005 the amount was paid to the applicant’s representative.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of non-payment of the sum he was awarded by the domestic court.
THE LAW
By a letter dated 25 June 2005, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the Kahta Municipality had signed a protocol with the applicant by which the Municipality declared that 18,500 new Turkish liras were to be paid to the applicant. This sum was paid to the applicant’s representative on 15 June 2005.
The applicant’s representative further requested the Court to continue the examination of the case in respect of the legal cost incurred in the domestic proceedings.
By a letter dated 9 August 2005, the Government accepted the contents of the letter of the applicant’s representative with the exception that the Municipality paid the amount including the costs and expenses, and the lawyers’ fee. They stated that with this protocol, signed by the applicant’s representative, the applicant declared that no claim and credit remained in favour of him.
The Court takes note of the protocol dated 26 May 2005.
The Court reiterates that the terms of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention which reads in so far as relevant as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (...)
(b) the matter has been resolved; or
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
In the present case, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved since the applicant’s complaint was related to non-payment of the sum, which has been paid by the Municipality. It further notes that the protocol signed by the applicant’s representative and the Municipality in this regard, included the legal fees and statement of the applicant waiving any claim and credit remained in favour of him.
The Court further considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or in its Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case. It therefore decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy