FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 46562/99
by Fikret ODABAŞI and Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrR. Türmen,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 September 1998,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Fikret Odabaşı, Mr Ömer Karaman and Mr Mustafa Tüten are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1944, 1939 and 1948 respectively, and live in Istanbul. They are represented before the Court by Mr Hüsamettin Koçak, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 September 1992 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü) expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amounts were paid to the applicants.
Proceedings concerning the first and third applicants
Following the applicants’ requests for additional compensation, on 4 June 1996, the Pendik Civil Court of First Instance (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate. On 26 September 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments. On 17 March 1998 the due amounts were paid to the applicants.
Proceedings concerning the second applicant
Following the applicant’s request for additional compensation, on 16 October 1996, the Pendik Civil Court of First Instance (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate. On 1 October 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. On 17 March 1998 the due amount was paid to the applicant.
Details are indicated in the table below:
NAMES OF THE APPLICANTS
DATE FROM WHICH THE STATUTORY RATE OF INTEREST
(30% and 50%) BEGAN TO RUN
DATE OF FINAL DECISION BY COURT OF CASSATION AS REGARDS 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 % and 50 % PER ANNUM AND COSTS)
(the statutory rate of interest was 30%
from 19.12.1984 and 50% from 1.1.1998)
(in Turkish liras)
Fikret Odabaşı
23.01.1996
26.09.1996
824,500,000
17.03.1998
1,434,886,000
Ömer Karaman
26.12.1995
01.10.1997
1,808,548,988
17.03.1998
3,178,234,000
Mustafa Tüten
23.12.1995
26.09.1996
1,209,144,395
17.03.1998
2,122,575,000
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the authorities had delayed in paying them the additional compensation and that at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey had been very high, they had been paid insufficient interest.
THE LAW
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had been paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following the expropriation of their land and that the authorities had delayed in paying them the relevant amounts.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the complaints brought before the Court by the first and third applicants and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government.
Insofar as the second applicant’s complaint concerns his entitlement to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, the Court must examine whether a fair balance has been maintained between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights; in that regard, the terms and conditions on which the compensation is payable under domestic legislation and the manner in which they were applied to the applicant’s case must be considered (see Lithgow and others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1996, Series A no. 102, p. 50, § 120).
The Court reiterates that the adequacy of compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as unreasonable delay (see, mutatis mutandis, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 90, § 82). Abnormally lengthy delays in the payment of compensation for expropriation lead to increased financial loss for the person whose land has been expropriated, putting him or her in a position of uncertainty especially when the monetary depreciation which occurs in certain States is taken into account (see Akkuş, v. Turkey, judgment of 9 July 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV, p. 1317, § 29).
The Court notes that, for the second applicant, the greater part of the additional compensation together with the interest at the rate of 30% per annum and from 1 January 1998 at the rate of 50% per annum was paid on 17 March 1998, that is to say four months sixteen days after the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
The Court observes that according to the calculation method adopted in the judgment of Akkuş v. Turkey case (see Akkuş, cited above, § 35) on the date of the finalisation of the judgment or within a reasonable period thereafter, the applicant should have received 2,758,037,207 Turkish liras (TRL). On the date of the payment the amount of full compensation should have been TRL 3,003,119,185. The applicant received TRL 3,178,234,000, which is 105.83 % of the full compensation. Thus, the Court finds that the second applicant appears to have suffered no damage in respect of the amount of compensation awarded to him. The Court observes that the interest rates applied to the additional compensation were sufficient to compensate the second applicant for any damage resulting from the authorities’ delay in payment of the compensation. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the first and the third applicants’ complaints concerning the national authorities’ delay in paying the additional compensation for expropriation and damage sustained by the applicants as a result of the low interest rate applied to it;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy