Resolution ResDH(2001)71
Concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 9 July 1997
in the case of Akkuş against Turkey
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 June 2001
at the 757th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Akkuş case delivered on 9 July 1997 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 19263/92) against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 August 1991 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Ms Sariye Akkuş, a Turkish national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint relating to the breach of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions due to the administration's delay in paying additional compensation for expropriation of the applicant's land;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 19 April 1996;
Whereas in its judgment of 9 July 1997 the Court notably:
- held, by seven votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
- held, by seven votes to two, that the government of the respondent state was to pay to the applicant, within three months, the following sums to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment:
48 US dollars as compensation for pecuniary damage,
1 000 US dollars for non-pecuniary damage,
5 000 US dollars for costs and expenses, less 8 968 French francs already received by way of legal aid;
and that these amounts, as determined in US dollars, shall bear simple interest at an annual rate of 5% from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed unanimously the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46 of the Convention, which apply to cases transmitted under former Article 54 of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 9 July 1997, having regard to Turkey’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1 (former Article 53) of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the general measures taken in order to prevent new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment (this information appears in the appendix to this resolution);
Having satisfied itself that on 9 October 1997, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 9 July 1997,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2001)71
Information provided by the Government of Turkey
during the examination of the Akkuş case
by the Committee of Ministers
The Government notes that the violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the Akkuş and Aka cases and in a number of subsequent similar cases were due to the provisions of Law No. 3095 of 4 December 1984 which fixed the statutory rate of default interest on state debts at 30%, whereas the average rate of inflation at the time was 70% per annum.
Following the Court's judgment in the Akkuş case (judgment of 9 July 1997), the Turkish Council of Ministers, by a decision adopted on 9 October 1997, increased the statutory rate of default interest on state debts from 30% to 50%.
The Government subsequently concluded, however, that the increase in the statutory rate to 50% did not prevent further violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 since the inflation rate was still close to, or even in excess of, 70%. The Turkish Council of Ministers therefore laid before parliament a draft amendment to the law on default interest: this amendment, without specifying a fixed rate, was intended to bring the statutory rate of default interest into line with the fluctuating rate of inflation in Turkey.
On 15 December 1999, the Turkish Grand National Assembly adopted a law (No. 4489) which, upon coming into force on 1 January 2000, brought the statutory rate of default interest into line with the annual rediscount rate applied by the Turkish Central Bank to short-term debts. The latter rate is fixed and permanently reviewed in relation notably to the country's inflation rate. The Government considers that this new method for determining the statutory rate of default interest will also encourage the relevant authorities to speed up payment procedures.
In a more general way, the Government would like to point out a positive evolution of the internal jurisprudence which refers henceforth directly to the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as they are set out in the European Court's judgments (see, for example, decisions of Constitutional Court of 29 December 1999, published on 29 June 2000). The Government considers that these recent examples are indicative of the will of the highest national judicial authorities to ensure effective respect for the European Court's judgments in the interpretation of Turkish law. According to the Government, this attitude of the judiciary is in line with Turkey's undertakings under Article 46, paragraph 1 (former Article 53) of the Convention and it will play an important role in the effective prevention of the violations. The Government is furthermore convinced that the evolution of domestic jurisprudence, which tends to grant a direct effect to the European Court's judgments, should continue and extend to all spheres protected by the Convention.
In the opinion of the Government, the abovementioned measures prevent new violations similar to those found by the European Court in Akkuş and Aka cases as well as in many similar cases. Turkey has therefore fulfilled its obligations under Article 46§1 (former Article 53) of the Convention in these cases.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy