Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)274[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Gög, Kolsuzoğlu and Agbayır against Turkey
(Applications Nos. 10332/02 and 25805/02, judgment of 24/01/2008, final on 24/04/2008)
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 infringement of the principle of legal certainty by domestic courts (Article 6§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 judgment;
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 applicants 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 judgment, 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 this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)274
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Gög, Kolsuzoğlu and Agbayır against Turkey
The case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of subsequent factual findings by domestic courts in contradiction with earlier final judgments (violation of Article 6§1).
The applicants were joint owners of a plot of land, which was seized in 1991 without compensation by the Ministry of Defence. In 1996, the applicants brought an action seeking compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land, arguing that their land had been occupied since 1991 by the Ministry of Defence. The government objected that the applicants’ action was time-barred, arguing that the said land had been occupied since 1977 and not 1991. The courts established that the land had been occupied since 1991 and awarded compensation to the applicants. This decision was upheld by the Court of cassation.
In the context of further proceedings brought by the applicants in 1999, seeking additional compensation, the Court of Cassation ruled in favour of the government: it found that the land had been occupied since 1977 and that the additional requests for compensation were accordingly time-barred. The applicants’ actions were dismissed in 2000 and 2001.
The European Court found that, by returning without any valid reason to an issue which had already been the subject of a final decision, the domestic courts had infringed the principle of “legal certainty”.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
35 000 EUR
------
35 000 EUR
Paid on 25/06/2008
b) Individual measures
The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of all the damages 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