THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42126/98
by Güner BATUR
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 September 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 introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 May 1998,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Güner Batur, is a Turkish national, who was born in Sinop and lives in Ankara. She is represented before the Court by Mr Osman Batur.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 8 February 1995 the Provincial Administration of Sinop (Sinop İl Özel İdaresi) expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicant in Sinop. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and compensation was paid to her when the expropriation took place.
Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, the Sinop First Instance Court awarded her additional compensation assessed at TRL 3,033,614,640 plus interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, namely the rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision. The date, 27 May 1995, was fixed by the first instance court for the running of the statutory rate of interest. On 29 June 1996, the Sinop First Instance Court’s decision became final. On 10 April 2000 the administration paid the applicant an additional compensation of TRL 8,911,439,000, interest included.
The interest on the compensation was calculated at the statutory rate applicable between the running date of the interest and 1 January 1998, namely 30%. As regards the period after 1 January 1998 the interest was calculated at the then applicable rate, namely 50%. The statutory rate of interest was increased to 60% as of 1 January 2000.
Between 1993 and 1999 the rate of inflation averaged 81.7% per annum.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the rate of interest applied to the calculation of the additional compensation granted to her for the expropriation of her land was too low, despite the high inflation rate in Turkey. She also complains about the delay in obtaining the additional compensation.
THE LAW
On 12 June 2002 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative:
“I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay me the sum of EUR 22,500 (twenty-two thousand and five hundred euros) covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
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 I ... have reached.
...”
On 10 July 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Turkey offer to pay EUR 22,500 (twenty-two thousand and five hundred euros) to Mrs Güner Batur. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the [decision] delivered by the Court ... This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
...”
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 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