SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 41479/05
by İsmet ÜÇPINAR
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Antonella Mularoni,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr İsmet Üçpinar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Aksaray. He is represented before the Court by Ms H. Müslümoğlu and Mr K. Yaz, lawyers practising in Konya.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Administrative Proceedings
On 18 September 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Municipality of Konya before the Konya Administrative Court and requested the annulment of the expropriation decision concerning his property.
On 11 December 1996 the Konya Administrative Court gave a decision in favour of the applicant.
The Municipality appealed.
On 20 April 1998 the Council of State upheld the decision.
The Municipality requested rectification.
On 23 November 1999 the Council of State quashed the decision of the Konya Administrative Court.
On 17 July 2000 the Konya Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the annulment of the expropriation decision.
The applicant appealed.
On 14 January 2002 the Council of State upheld the decision.
The applicant requested rectification.
On 12 March 2003 the Council of State dismissed the applicant’s request.
2. Civil Proceedings
On 1 May 2003 the applicant brought an action before the Konya Court of First Instance for increased compensation.
On 21 June 2004 the Konya Court of First Instance partly accepted the applicant’s claim and awarded him additional compensation of 1,861,980,000[1] Turkish liras (TRL), which bore statutory interest running from 26 August 1996, the date on which title to the land was transferred to the authorities.
The applicant appealed.
On 29 December 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
The applicant requested rectification.
On 18 April 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the request for rectification and notified the applicant on 10 May 2005.
On 22 June 2005 the authorities paid the applicant TRL 13,783,000,000[2].
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the administrative proceedings had exceeded the reasonable time requirement.
The applicant further maintained, in particular, that the rate of default interest applied to additional compensation for expropriation had not been sufficient against the rate of inflation.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that the rate of default interest applied to additional compensation for expropriation had not been sufficient against the rate of inflation.
The Court considers that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the Konya Administrative Court had been excessive.
The Court observes that the proceedings before the above-mentioned court ended on 12 March 2003 whereas the applicant lodged his complaint with the Court on 10 November 2005, more than six months later.
It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously by a majority
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the damage allegedly sustained by him as a result of the various insufficient interest rates applied to State debts against the high inflation rate;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
[1]. Approximately 1,031 euros (EUR)
[2]. Approximately EUR 8,375
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy