Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 88
July-August 2006
Doğan and Others v. Turkey - 8803/02
Judgment 13.7.2006 [Section III]
Article 41
Just satisfaction
Damage suffered by villagers deprived of access to their village for nearly ten years: monetary award
Facts: For nearly ten years between 1994 and 2003, the authorities refused the applicants any access to their village on the ground of terrorist incidents in and around that place. This deprived the applicants of all resources from which they derived their living. In a judgment delivered on 29 June 2004 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. More specifically, as regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court held that, as a result of their inability to have access to their possessions, the applicants had had to bear an individual and excessive burden which had upset the fair balance which should be struck between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions.
Article 41 – Pecuniary damage: The Court considers that the ability of the applicants to return to Boydaş and compensation of the loss sustained by them during the period in which they were denied access to their homes and land would put the applicants as far as possible in a situation equivalent to the one in which they would have been if there had not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8 of the Convention. However, it appears from the parties’ submissions that the applicants are no longer willing to return to their homes and land and to start a new life in their village. Thus, in the circumstances of the present case, the award of compensation for the pecuniary loss in question seems to be the most appropriate just satisfaction for the applicants. In this connection, the Court cannot accept the Government’s argument that the applicants should be required at this stage of the proceedings to apply to the competent compensation commissions in order to seek reparation for their damages. It points out that the parties failed to reach an agreement on the issue of just satisfaction and the proceedings have already lasted a very long time. In view of the foregoing, the Court will determine the amount of the pecuniary damage to be paid to each of the applicants. In assessing the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, the Court will, as far as appropriate, take into account the estimates provided by the parties. Nevertheless, given the divergent nature of the evidence put forward under Article 41, the Court’s assessment will inevitably involve a degree of speculation.
a) Damage resulting from deterioration or lack of care of property: Only established in respect of eight applicants. The Court awards them EUR 1,000 each.
b) Loss of earnings: in determining the compensation, the level of comparable awards made by the compensation commissions should be taken into account. However, in assessing the amounts it should be borne in mind that the applicants continued their economic activities, albeit in poor conditions, in their new places of living. The Court awards each applicant EUR 13,500.
c) Cost of alternative accommodation: Claimed by thirteen of the fifteen applicants. One is awarded EUR 4,200, the others EUR 5,400.
Non-pecuniary damage: In view of the measures taken by the authorities of the respondent State to remedy the situation of the applicants and other internally displaced persons subsequent to the adoption of the principal judgment, the principal judgment in itself constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage arising from the violations established.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy