THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 74603/01
by Hacer GÜRSOY and Mebrule HARMAN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 May 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrR. Türmen,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 1998,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case submitted by the applicants and the Government on 18 April 2002 and 15 April 2002 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Hacer Gürsoy and Mebrule Harman, are Turkish nationals born in 1955 and 1945 respectively, living in Aydın. They are represented before the Court by Mr Akkuzu, a lawyer practising in Aydın.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü), a state body responsible, inter alia, for motorway construction, expropriated three plots of land belonging to the applicants in Aydın in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of these plots of land and the amount was paid to them when the expropriation took place.
Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 25 October 1996 the Aydın Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate of 30 % per annum from 29 January 1996. This decision became final on 27 January 1997 and the due amount was paid to the applicants on 27 April 1998.
Details are indicated in the table below.
DATE ON WHICH THE DECISION AS REGARDS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION BECAME FINAL
AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION (INTERESTS AND LEGAL COSTS NOT INCLUDED) (in Turkish liras)
DATE OF PAYMENT
AMOUNT OF PAYMENT (INCLUDING STATUTORY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 30 % PER ANNUM AND COSTS) (in Turkish liras)
27.01.1997
16,653,888,334
27.04.1998
29,211,363,000
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey was very high, they had been paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following the expropriation of their land and the authorities had delayed in paying them the relevant amount.
THE LAW
Following informal contacts between the applicants’ and the Government’s representatives, the Section Registrar was asked to assist the parties in reaching a solution to the matter. As a result, the Registrar addressed draft declarations to the parties.
The Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Turkey offer to pay 40,000 (forty thousand) Euros to Ms Hacer Gürsoy and Ms Mebrule Harman. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the [decision] by the Court...
This sum shall be paid in Euros to a bank account named by the applicants, free of any taxes and charges that may be applicable. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case...”
The Court received the following declaration from the representative of the applicants:
“I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay the sum of 40,000 (forty thousand) euros covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Ms Hacer Gürsoy and Ms Mebrule Harman with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.
This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and the applicants have reached...”
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols and considers that there is no reason which would justify the continuation of the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of the Court).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy