SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21591/04
Ahmet DINÇER
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23 January 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Paul Lemmens, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 April 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Ahmet Dinçer, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1934 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr A.R. Batmazoğlu, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. From 1995 onwards the plot of land belonging to the applicant in the Ormanlı village in the Çatalca District of Istanbul land was flooded by the overflowing water of the Terkos Dam during certain months of the year.
4. On 27 February 2002 the applicant, considering that his land was de facto expropriated by the Administration of the Water and the Drains of Istanbul (the Administration), initiated compensation proceedings. The applicant’s claim was dismissed in 2004. The domestic courts concluded that the Administration had not restricted the applicant’s use of his land permanently.
5. The applicant complained that the Administration had been using his land without following the formal expropriation procedures and thus deprived him of his property without any compensation. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was denied a fair hearing due to the contradictory decisions of the Court of Cassation in similar cases.
6. Following the communication of the case on 21 March 2017, in their observations the Government pointed out that on 10 August 2006 the applicant and the Administration had reached an agreement. According to this agreement, the applicant had agreed to transfer the ownership of the plot of land in question to the Administration in return for compensation amounting to 24,600 Turkish liras (TRY). The Government further noted that full payment had been made to the applicant on 14 November 2006 and that the land had been registered in the land registry in the name of the Administration. In his reply, dated 20 October 2017, the applicant confirmed that in 2006 he had reached an agreement with the Administration and that he had received the full market value of his land. The applicant further noted that, in his view, the subject matter of the case had been resolved.
THE LAW
7. In the light of the above, the Court notes that following the introduction of the application, the parties reached an agreement. The matter has therefore been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. The Court further considers, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application.
8. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 February 2018.
Hasan BakırcıPaul Lemmens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy