THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31271/96
by Emine KARACALI
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 May 2002 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 application lodged on 20 January 1996,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case submitted by the applicant and the Government on 8 November 2001 and 11 January 2002 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Emine Karacalı, is a Turkish national born in 1934 and lives in Balıkesir. She is represented before the Court by Mr Turgut İnal and Mrs Ferhunde İnal, lawyers practising in Balıkesir.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 March 1993 land belonging to the applicant was expropriated by order of the Ministry of Finance and Customs. This decision was served on the applicant on 29 September 1993 and as she did not challenge this decision before national courts, the expropriation decision became final on 30 October 1993.
Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 6 July 1994 the Balıkesir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded her an additional compensation plus interest at the rate of 30% per annum. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 21 November 1994. On 16 October 1988 the due amount was paid partially to the applicant.
In the meantime, following the amendment of Law No. 3095 on 8 August 1997, the rate of interest on overdue State debts was increased to 50% per annum as of 1 January 1998.
Details are indicated in the table below:
DATE ON WHICH THE EXPROPRIATION DECISION BECAME FINAL
DATE OF FINAL DECISION BY THE COURT OF CASSATION AS REGARDS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF STATE DEBT ON THE DATE OF FINAL DECISION (in Turkish Liras)
DATE OF PARTIAL PAYMENT
30.10.1993
21.11.1994
27,125,000
10.16.1998
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey was approximately 70%, she had been paid insufficient interest rate (30% per annum) for additional compensation received following the expropriation of her land. The applicant submits that by deferring the compensation, national authorities rendered it inadequate.
THE LAW
Following informal contacts between the applicant’s 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 the Government of Turkey offer to pay 400 (four hundred) United States dollars to Ms Emine Karacalı with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no. 31271/96. This sum shall 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 US dollars to a bank account named by the applicant, 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 applicant:
“I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay the sum of 400 (four hundred) United States dollars covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Ms Emine Karacalı with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application no. 31271/96 pending before the Court.
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 applicant 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