THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications nos.
7782/03, 7784/03, 7786/03, 7788/03, 7789/03,
7790/03, 7791/03, 7792/03, 7793/03
by Muammer GÜLER, Ramazan ŞAHİN, İbrahim YILMAZ,
Muharrem KOYUNCU, Mahmut ÇAKMAK, Mehmet YILMAZ,
Hayriye YAMAN and Others, Hakkı DÖNER and Engin DURSUN, Ramazan TUNCER
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 July 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrP. Kūris,
MrR. Türmen,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrsH.S. Greve, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications introduced on 3 January 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Muammer Güler, Ramazan Şahin, İbrahim Yılmaz, Muharrem Koyuncu, Mahmut Çakmak, Mehmet Yılmaz, Hayriye Yaman, Necla Yaman, Kadir Yaman, Saliha Yaman, Nimet Köse, Zeynep Süslü, Hakkı Döner, Engin Dursun and Ramazan Tuncer, are Turkish nationals, represented before the Court by Mrs Belkıs Baysal, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
Application no. 7782/03
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. The amount which was assessed by a committee of experts was paid when the expropriation took place.
On 19 July 1993 the applicant commenced legal proceedings before the Kartal Civil Court of First Instance for additional compensation.
On 19 November 1993 the court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, starting from 24 June 1993.
On 23 February 1994 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Kartal Civil Court of First Instance.
The due amount was paid to the applicant on 16 January 1998.
Application no. 7784/03
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. The amount which was assessed by a committee of experts was paid when the expropriation took place.
On 2 May 1986 the applicant commenced legal proceedings before the Üsküdar Civil Court of First Instance for additional compensation.
On 27 April 1987 the court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, starting from 24 October1986.
On 15 February 1988 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Üsküdar Civil Court of First Instance.
The due amount was paid to the applicant on 10 December 1996.
Application no. 7786/03
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. The amount which was assessed by a committee of experts was paid when the expropriation took place.
On 3 July 1996 the applicant commenced legal proceedings before the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance for additional compensation.
On 5 November 1996 the court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, starting from 26 June1996.
On 25 February 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance.
The due amount was paid to the applicant on 8 December 1997.
Application no. 7788/03
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. The amount which was assessed by a committee of experts was paid when the expropriation took place.
On 3 July 1996 the applicant commenced legal proceedings before the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance for additional compensation.
On 5 November 1996 the court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, starting from 26 June 1996.
On 25 February 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance.
The due amount was paid to the applicant on 8 December 1997.
Application no. 7789/03
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. The amount which was assessed by a committee of experts was paid when the expropriation took place.
On 11 December 1990 the applicant commenced legal proceedings before the Kartal Civil Court of First Instance for additional compensation.
On 2 October 1992 the court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, starting from 20 November1990.
On 28 April 1993 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Kartal Civil Court of First Instance.
The due amount was paid to the applicant on 27 November 1996.
Application no. 7790/03
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. The amount which was assessed by a committee of experts was paid when the expropriation took place.
On 3 July 1996 the applicant commenced legal proceedings before the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance for additional compensation.
On 5 November 1996 the court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, starting from 26 June1996.
On 25 February 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance.
The due amount was paid to the applicant on 8 December 1997.
Application no. 7791/03
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants. The amount which was assessed by a committee of experts was paid when the expropriation took place.
On 3 July 1996 the applicants commenced legal proceedings before the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance for additional compensation.
On 5 November 1996 the court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, starting from 3 July 1996.
On 25 February 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance.
The due amount was paid to the applicants on 8 December 1997.
Application no. 7792/03
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants. The amount which was assessed by a committee of experts was paid when the expropriation took place.
On 12 November 1991 the applicant commenced legal proceedings before the Kartal Civil Court of First Instance for additional compensation.
On 13 July 1992 the court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, starting from 15 October 1991.
On 7 June 1993 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Kartal Civil Court of First Instance.
The due amount was paid to the applicant on 23 December 1996.
Application no. 7793/03
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicant. The amount which was assessed by a committee of experts was paid when the expropriation took place.
On 22 July 1992 the applicant commenced legal proceedings before the Üsküdar Civil Court of First Instance for additional compensation.
On 22 December 1992 the court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, starting from 23 June 1986 and 10 April 1990 respectively.
On 6 April 1993 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Üsküdar Civil Court of First Instance.
The due amount was paid to the applicant on 10 December 1996.
THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT
1. The lodging of the applications
Applications nos. 7790/03, 7786/03, 7788/03 and 7791/03
The first letter concerning these applications was received on 6 June 1998.
A letter was sent by the Court on 27 July 1998 requesting further information as the applications were incomplete.
As the Court did not receive any reply, the provisional file concerning the application no PL9265 was destroyed on 10 August 2000.
Applications nos. 7784/03, 7792/03 and 7793/03
The first letter concerning these applications was received on 9 June 1997.
A letter was sent by the Court on 30 July 1997 requesting further information as the applications were incomplete.
As the Court did not receive any reply, the provisional file concerning the application no PK7781 was destroyed on 9 December 1999.
Application no. 7782/03
The first letter concerning the application was received on 15 August 1998.
Warning letter was sent from the Court on 18 January 2000 requesting clarification and proof for the purpose of the respect of the six months rule.
As the Court did not receive any reply, the provisional file concerning the application no PN1266 was destroyed on 13 September 2001.
Application no. 7789/03
The first letter concerning this application was received on 9 June 1997.
The warning letter was sent from the Court on 30 July 1997 requesting clarification and proof for the purpose of the respect of the six months rule.
As the Court did not receive any reply, the provisional file concerning the application no PK7780 was destroyed on 9 December 1999.
2. The applicants’ request
On 7 August and 11 November 2002 the applicants’ representative wrote two letters addressed to the Registry complaining about the destruction of the provisional files concerning these applications. She claimed that she did not receive any letters and that there was no mention of the destruction of the application in the Rules of Court in case of alleged inactivity of the applicants. She alleged that she had pursued her cases via telephone conversations with the Registry and not by writing letters to the Court and that therefore she could not have been considered as inactive. She also stated that she had submitted around 71 similar cases between 1996 and 1998 some of which were pending and others concluded by friendly settlements whereupon she inquired about the developments in these cases. Therefore she requested that the running of six-months of these applications be calculated from the date of their original applications.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 1 Protocol No.1 that the amount of the additional compensation was insufficient because of the rate of interest applied. Furthermore they complain that the value of the compensation diminished by the time the authorities paid this additional compensation due the to the rate of the inflation at that time.
THE LAW
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had been paid insufficient additional compensation and that the authorities had delayed in paying them the relevant compensation.
The Court considers that it should first examine whether the applicants have complied with the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
In accordance with its established practice, the Court considers the date of introduction of an application to be the date of the first letter indicating an intention to lodge an application and giving some indication of the nature of the complaint. However, where a substantial interval follows before an applicant submits further information as to his proposed application, the Court examines the particular circumstances of the case in order to decide what date shall be regarded as the date of introduction and from which to calculate the running of the six month period set out in Article 35 of the Convention (see Hansen and others v. Denmark, no. 22507/93, Commission decision of 5 April 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR) 81, p. 67, and Gaillard v. France (dec.), no. 47337/99, 11 July 2000).
It would be contrary to the spirit and the aim of the six months rule set out in Article 35 of the Convention if, by any initial communication, an applicant could set into motion the proceedings under Article 35 of the Convention and then remain inactive for an unexplained and unlimited length of time. Delays in pursuing the case are only acceptable in so far as they are based on reasons connected with the case (Hansen and others cited above, and Quaresma Afonso Palma v. Portugal (dec.), no. 72496/01, 13 February 2003,).
In the present cases, the applications were lodged with the Court for the first time between 1997 and 1998 and they were destroyed between 1999 and 2001 following a long time of inactivity of the applicants to the letter of the Court requesting the completion of the applications. The Court further notes that the applicant’s representative inquired and became aware of the destruction of these applications in 2002.
As the delays in the previous applications cannot be considered to be based on reasons connected to the case but rather due to the lack of due diligence of the applicants’ lawyer, the calculation of the six months should start running from the present date of introduction of the applications.
Therefore, notwithstanding the applicants’ initial submissions, the Court considers in the present case 3 January 2003 to be the date of introduction of the applications and it follows that, having thus been introduced out of time, they must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy