Aka v. Turkey

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.

September 1998

Aka v. Turkey - 19639/92

Judgment 23.9.1998

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Deprivation of property

Delays in payment of additional compensation for expropriation; statutory interest for delay insufficient to compensate for loss caused by high monetary depreciation: 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.ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

A.Government’s preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies)

Remedy provided by Article 105 of Code of Obligations: clear from binding case-law that creditors of State could not obtain damages by that means for loss resulting from inflation – remedy not adequate and effective.

Conclusion: objection dismissed (unanimously).

B.Merits of complaint

Application concerned fact that statutory interest for delay had been insufficient to compensate for high monetary depreciation during periods of more than four and five years respectively between dates proceedings for additional compensation had been brought and dates sums awarded were actually paid.

Recapitulation of case-law requiring that a “fair balance” be struck between demands of general interest of community and fundamental rights of person whose property has been expropriated – Court had to consider terms and conditions on which compensation was payable under domestic legislation and manner in which they had been applied.

In case before Court, additional compensation had been awarded in respect of two plots of land and, like all debts of State, had borne interest at statutory rate of 30% per annum – during periods under consideration inflation in Turkey had reached 70% per annum – exceptional situation favourable to State if it did not perform its obligations as diligently as it should.

Difference between value of applicant’s compensation when his land was expropriated and when actually paid – due solely to failings on part of authority and had caused loss separate from loss of land – had upset “fair balance”.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION

A.Pecuniary damage

Applicant entitled to reimbursement of difference between amounts actually paid and amounts he would have received if there had been an adjustment to compensate for monetary depreciation over the relevant periods.

B.Non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses

Non-pecuniary damage: award on an equitable basis.

Costs and expenses: claim dismissed, lack of supporting evidence.

Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (unanimously).

© 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

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy