Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)273[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Mörel against Turkey
(Application No. 33663/02, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the domestic courts’ dismissal of the applicant’s compensation claim for expropriation, for being out of time, despite notification shortcomings on the part of the authorities (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that within the time-limit set the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- general measures preventing, similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2011)273
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Mörel against Turkey
The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the courts’ dismissal of the applicant’s application for additional compensation for expropriation on the ground that it was filed out of time, although the expropriation was not properly notified.
In 1988, the authorities decided to expropriate the applicant’s property. However, they failed to identify its owner, as the property tax declarations could not be located and that the title deed office records indicated its original owner and was thus outdated. As direct notification was not possible, the expropriation was announced in local newspapers as well as over loudspeakers throughout the town, pursuant to Article 10 of Law on Expropriation No. 2942. In 1996, when he became aware of the expropriation, the applicant lodged an additional compensation claim. He relied on a principle of Turkish law that a prescription period would not run in the absence of proper notification. However the courts held that the manner in which the expropriation was notified was justifiable and thus the prescription period had elapsed.
The European Court concluded that the authorities did not show due diligence in notifying the applicant of the expropriation of the land and that the courts should have entertained the exception that he invoked. The Court therefore held that the applicant had been deprived of his property without adequate compensation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
30 400 EUR
----
4 000 EUR
34 400 EUR
Paid on 5/12/2007
b) Individual measures
The European Court awarded the applicant a significant amount of just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage sustained.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
The European Court’s judgment was translated into Turkish, sent out to the high courts and relevant authorities, and published on the official web site of the Turkish Ministry of Justice (). The Turkish authorities considered that the problem revealed by this judgment was an isolated one, and that the publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would therefore be sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future. Therefore, no further general measures appear necessary.
Conclusions
The government considers that no individual measure is required apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy