THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 52159/99
by Muhyettin ERNEKAL
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 March 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrI. Cabral Barreto, President,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrP. Kūris,
MrR. Türmen,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrK. Traja,
MrsA. Gyulumyan, judges,
and Mr M. Villiger, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 February 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mühyettin Ernekal, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Siirt. He is represented before the Court by Mr Mesut Beştaş and Mrs Meral Beştaş, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 December 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated three plots of land belonging to the applicant. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land belonging to the applicant and this amount was paid to him.
Following the applicant's request for increased compensation, on 8 September 1998 the Baykan Civil Court of First Instance awarded him additional compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision. In calculating the increased compensation, the court took into account the different experts' opinions and the amount requested by the applicant. Before the court, the applicant accepted the experts' reports on the evaluation of the plots of land.
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways appealed against the judgment of the Baykan Civil Court of First Instance.
On 19 October 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Baykan Civil Court.
According to the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways' pay order the due amount was paid to the applicant on 22 December 1998. The applicant alleges that the due amount was paid on 4 January 1999.
Details are indicated in the table below:
AMOUNT OF INITIAL COMPENSATION PAID TO THE APPLICANT
(In Turkish liras)
DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICANT INITIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION (INTERESTS AND LEGAL COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED)
(In Turkish liras)
DATE AND AMOUNT OF PAYMENT (INCLUDING STATUTORY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 30 % & 50 % PER ANNUM AND COSTS)
(in Turkish liras)
7,960,000
5,320,000
25,760,000
14 October 1996
25,870,000
17,290,000
71,020,000
22 December 1998
42,226,000, 59,268,000 and 147,101,000
COMPLAINTS
The applicant claims under Article 6 of the Convention that the amount of additional compensation awarded for his plots of land was too low. In this connection he alleges that since the court charges were too high, he had to request an amount which did not reflect the real value of the land.
The applicant submits under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention that the authorities had delayed in paying him the additional compensation and that at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey had been very high, he had been paid insufficient interest.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the authorities had delayed in paying him the additional compensation and that at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey had been very high, he had been paid insufficient interest.
The Court considers that it cannot on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant claims under Article 6 of the Convention that the amount of additional compensation awarded for his plots of land was too low. In this connection he alleges that since the court charges were too high, he had to request an amount which did not reflect the real value of the land.
The Court reiterates that according to the relevant case-law, the establishment of the facts and the assessment of the evidence are primarily matters for the domestic courts, the Court's supervisory jurisdiction being limited to ensuring the applicant's Convention rights have not been breached.
The Court observes that the domestic courts, after having assessed the evidence submitted by both parties and the experts' opinions determined the values of the plots of land. Furthermore, the Court notes that before the court the applicant accepted the value of the land determined by the experts' reports. Therefore, the Court considers that there is nothing to indicate that the taking and the assessment of the evidence was arbitrary or the proceedings were otherwise unfair to raise an issue under Article 6 of the Convention.
In view of the above, the Court finds that this part of the application be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint concerning the applicant's right to protection of his property;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Mark VilligerIreneu Cabral Barreto
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy