Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)106[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
19 cases against Turkey
(see Appendix for the list of cases)
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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (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 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, the respondent State paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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 these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)106
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments
in 19 cases against Turkey
Introductory case summary
These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. According to the Treasury, property belonging to the applicants was designated as public forest and therefore could not be owned by private individuals by virtue of the relevant legislation. Consequently, the entries of the properties in the land register were cancelled by domestic court decisions. However, no compensation was awarded to the applicants on account of the damage suffered. The Court found that the deprivation of the applicants’ right to property without any form of compensation amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Turgut and others (1411/03)
1 350 000 EUR
-
-
1 350 000 EUR
Paid on 27/04/2010
Türkan (8774/06)
-
-
-
-
Sever (29195/05)
-
-
-
-
Serpil Kaya and others (21313/05)
-
-
-
-
Temel Conta Sanayii ve Ticaret A.Ş. (45651/04)
1 750 000 EUR
2 000 EUR
-
1 752 000 EUR
Paid on 09/03/2011
Çetiner and Yücetürk (24620/04)
-
-
-
-
Pak (21516/04)
10 000 EUR
-
-
10 000 EUR
Paid on 21/07/2010
Kök and others (20868/04)
175 000 EUR
-
5 000 EUR
180 000 EUR
Paid on 11/05/2010
Rimer and others (18257/04)
875 000 EUR
-
2 000 EUR
877 000 EUR
Paid on 11/11/2010
Nural Vural (16009/04)
131 449 EUR
-
-
131 449 EUR
Paid on 13/11/2010
Hacısalihoğlu (343/04)
2 050 EUR
2 000 EUR
4 050 EUR
Paid on 02/12/2009
Satır (36192/03)
110 000 EUR
-
-
110 000 EUR
Paid on 10/11/2010
Köktepe (35785/03)
100 000 EUR
-
-
100 000 EUR
Paid on 27/04/2010
Keceli and Başpınar (21426/03)
530 000 EUR
-
-
530 000 EUR
Paid on 28/09/2010
Devecioğlu (17203/03)
100 000 EUR
-
5 000 EUR
105 000 EUR
Paid on 24/05/2010
Cin and others (305/03)
980 000 EUR
-
-
980 000 EUR
Paid on 05/05/2010
Öztok (42082/02)
175 000 EUR (global)
-
175 000 EUR
Paid on 08/06/2010
Bozak (32697/02)
1 300 000 EUR
-
-
1 300 000 EUR
Paid on 09/3/2011
Ali Taş (10250/02)
33 000 EUR
-
-
33 000 EUR
Paid on 22/03/2010
b) Individual measures
In these cases, the Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages suffered by the applicants. In some cases, the Court did not award any just satisfaction to the applicants since they had not submitted any claim within the time limit. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
The new case-law of the Turkish Court of Cassation: In November 2009, the joint civil divisions of the Court of cassation reversed their previous position and, relying on the European Court’s case-law, held that the State bore responsibility for any irregularities in the land registers. The joint civil divisions of the Court of cassation considered that the State could be held liable for the loss or privation of any interest or rights as a result of incorrect entries in the land registers and that the State was accountable for any damage stemming from entries that were incorrect or had no basis. They held that where a private individual’s document of title had been declared void because the land was part of the public forest estate, the individual concerned was entitled to claim compensation under Article 1007 of the Civil Code.
In October 2011 the 20th Civil Division of the Court of Cassation ruled that anyone whose title to property had been annulled and transferred to the Treasury could bring a claim for compensation under Article 1007 of the Civil Code within 10 years, in accordance with Article 125 of the Code on Obligations. It specified that the State incurred strict liability for any irregularities in the land register and that the amount of compensation should be assessed on the basis of the use, nature and value of the property in question.
Decision of the European Court in the case of Altunay (42936/07): In this case the European Court considered that it appeared that anyone who was in the same situation as the applicants in these cases would be able to obtain compensation as a consequence of the case-law of the Court of Cassation mentioned above. According to the European Court, the case-law of the Court of Cassation constituted sufficient basis for receiving compensation in similar cases.
III.Conclusions of the respondent State
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 6 June 2012 at the 1144th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy