Resolution ResDH(2002)115
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 17 July 2001 (final on 17 October 2001)
in the case of M.T. and others against Turkey
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 October 2002
at the 810th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the M.T. and others case delivered on 17 July 2001 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 34502/97) against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 October 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by M.T. and 34 other applicants, all Turkish nationals, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint that there had been a breach of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the administration's delay in paying additional compensation awarded by domestic courts for expropriation of the applicants’ property and due to the substantial difference between the default interest rate applicable at the time and the average rate of inflation in Turkey;
Whereas in its judgment of 17 July 2001 the Court unanimously:
- decided to strike the case out of the list in respect of 9 applicants;
- held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention in respect of the 26 other applicants ;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, M.T., O.Y., A.Y., E.T., H.E., En.T., S.T., N.V., Sa.T., Ah.T., Ne.T., P.Ö., M.K., Ay.T., Al.T., T.T., C.Ö., Ş.Ç., H.D., N.K., E.F.K., B.K., Ş.F., Ü.B., N.K. and H.B., within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, the following sums to be converted into Turkish Liras at the rate applicable on the date of settlement, 26 000 dollars U.S. in respect of non-pecuniary damage; 117 928 dollars U.S. in respect of pecuniary damage; 8 000 dollars U.S. in respect of costs and expenses together with any amount in respect of any tax or other fiscal change that may be due on the date of the payment and that simple interest at an annual rate of 6% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, 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 17 July 2001, having regard to Turkey’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, 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 recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations (see Resolutions DH(2001)70 and DH(2001)71 in the cases of, respectively Aka and Akkuş against Turkey respectively), notably through the entry into force on 1 January 2000 of Law No. 4489, which 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, taking into account particularly the country’s inflation rate), and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Having satisfied itself that on 13 November 2001, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 17 July 2001,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy