THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41005/98
by Berç Tateos ARHANYAN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 June 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrP. Kūris,
MrR. Türmen,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrsH.S. Greve, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 1998,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case submitted by the Government and the applicant on 26 April 2002 and 8 November 2001 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Berç Tateos Arhanyan, is a Turkish national, born in 1938 and living in İstanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr Terzi, a lawyer practising in İzmir.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1993, the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü) expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in İstanbul. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land belonging to the applicant and this amount was paid to him when the expropriation took place.
Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 13 May 1994 the Kartal Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate of 30 % per annum. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 12 October 1994 and the due amount was paid to the applicant on 16 January 1998.
Details are indicated in the table below:
DATE OF FINAL DECISION DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF CASASATION AS REGARDS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION (INTERESTS AND LEGAL COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED) (In Turkish liras)
DATE OF PAYMENT
AMOUNT OF PAYMENT (INCLUDING STATUTORY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 30 % PER ANNUM AND COSTS) (in Turkish liras)
12.10.1994
305,382,760
16.01.1998
743,234,000
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey was very high, he had been paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following the expropriation of his land and the authorities had delayed in paying him the relevant amounts.
THE LAW
Following informal contacts between the applicants’ and the Government’s representatives, the Section Registrar was asked to assist the parties in reaching a solution to the matter. As a result, the Registrar addressed draft declarations to the parties.
The Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay 6,700 (six thousand seven hundred) United States dollars to Mr Berç Tateos Arhanyan with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no. 41005/98. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court ...
This sum shall be paid in US dollars to a bank account named by the applicant, free of any taxes and charges that may be applicable. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case....”
The Court received the following declaration from the representative of the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay the sum of 6,700 (six thousand seven hundred) United States dollars covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Mr Berç Tateos Arhanyan with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application no. 41005/98 pending before the Court.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.
This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and the applicant have reached.”
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols and considers that there is no reason which would justify the continuation of the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of the Court).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy