THIRD SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 48257/99
by Şevket İŞLEK and Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 October 2003 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 with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 March 1999,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the partial decision of 23 November 1999,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case submitted by the applicants and the Government on 9 September 2002 and 15 July 2003 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Şevket İşlek, Nimet Şengül and Ahmet Aslan İşlek, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1963, 1940 and 1930 respectively. By a letter dated 27 August 2001 the applicants representative informed the Court that the applicant Şevket İşlek had died on 10 March 1999 and that his heirs Şenel İşlek and Şenel İşlek as the guardian of Çağla İşlek and Uğur Çağrı İşlek wish to pursue the application. They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Akıllıoğlu and Mr A. Aktay, lawyers practising in Ankara.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants in Tarsus in order to build the Tarsus -İçel - Çukurova - İskenderun Motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land belonging to the applicants and these amounts were paid to them when the expropriation took place.
Following the applicants’ requests for increased compensation, the national courts awarded them additional compensation plus an interest at the statutory rate of 30 % per annum. The applicants appealed and the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 4 September 1998 the due amounts were paid to the applicants respectively.
Details are indicated in the table below:
APPLICATION NUMBERS AND NAMES OF THE APPLICANTS
DATE OF TRANSFER OF TITLE DEED TO THE LAND
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 OF PAYMENT
1. Şenel İŞLEK Şenel İŞLEK (as the guardian of Çağla İşlek and Uğur Çağrı İşlek)
28.06.1995
27.04.1998
5.355.000.000
04.09.1998
2. Şenel İŞLEK Şenel İŞLEK (as the guardian of Çağla İşlek and Uğur Çağrı İşlek)
28.06.1995
27.04.1998
4.545.800.000
04.09.1998
3. Şenel İŞLEK Şenel İŞLEK (as the guardian of Çağla İşlek and Uğur Çağrı İşlek)
28.06.1995
27.04.1998
4.378.025.000
04.09.1998
4.Nimet ŞENGÜL
28.06.1995
27.04.1998
13.045.275.000
04.09.1998
5.Ahmet Aslan İŞLEK
03.07.1996
11.05.1998
8.974.500.000
04.09.1998
COMPLAINTS
The applicants allege that the rate of interest applied in the calculation of the additional compensation for expropriation was too low. They also complain of the delays in obtaining their compensation. In this regard they invoke Article 1 of Protocol No 1 and Article 6 of the Convention.
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 4,610 (four thousand six hundred and ten) euros to the heirs of Mr Şevket İşlek (Ms Şenel Işlek and Ms Şenel İşlek as the guardian of Çağla İşlek, and Uğur Çağrı İşlek), Ms Nimet Şengül and Mr Ahmet Aslan İşlek[1] with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no. 48257/99. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and will be divided up as follows:
the heirs of Mr Şevket İşlek (Ms Şenel Işlek, Ms Şenel İşlekas the guardian of Çağla İşlek, and Uğur Çağrı İşlek) 610 EUR
Ms Nimet Şengül600 EUR
Mr Ahmet Aslan İşlek3,400 EUR
This sum will be payable within three months from the date 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 one of the representatives of the applicants:
“I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay the sum of 4,610 (four thousand six hundred and ten) euros covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to the heirs of Mr Şevket İşlek (Ms Şenel Işlek and Ms Şenel İşlek as the guardian of Çağla İşlek, and Uğur Çağrı İşlek), Ms Nimet Şengül and Mr Ahmet Aslan İşlek with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application no. 48257/99 pending before the Court. This sum will be divided up as follows:
the heirs of Mr Şevket İşlek (Ms Şenel Işlek, Ms Şenel İşlek as the guardian of Çağla İşlek, and Uğur Çağrı İşlek) 610 EUR
Ms Nimet Şengül600 EUR
Mr Ahmet Aslan İşlek3,400 EUR
I also note that this sum will be payable within three months from the date 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.
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.”
After informing the Government, the Court took into consideration the applicant’s representative’s request of 9 September 2002 to mention in the above declaration the name of one of the applicants’ heirs.
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 disjoin the applications;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent Berger Georg Ress
RegistrarPresident
[1] Taking into consideration the letter sent by the applicant’s representative on 9 September 2002, the names of the applicant Şevket İşlek’s heirs have been added.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy