SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36459/06
Metin YAPAN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 February 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 August 2006,
Having regard to the decision of 8 December 2009,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Metin Yapan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Kırşehir. He was represented before the Court by Ms R. Yalçındağ Baydemir, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 16 April 1995 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. Subsequently, on 26 April 1995 he was placed in detention on remand.
4. On 17 September 1998 the applicant was released pending trial. On 30 December 1998 the applicant was acquitted of the charges against him.
5. On 1 April 1999 the applicant applied to the Karşıyaka Assize Court, seeking compensation, pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.
6. On 9 June 2003 the Karşıyaka Assize Court awarded him a total of 5,447,078,510 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 3,300 euros (EUR)) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
7. On 11 June 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment. The final decision was deposited with the first instance court’s registry on 3 September 2004.
8. On 2 March 2006 the applicant obtained a copy of the court’s decision from the first instance court’s registry and on 14 December 2006 he applied to the administration, requesting the payment of the outstanding amount.
9. On 25 December 2006 the outstanding debt was paid to the applicant with interest running from the date of the first instance court decision at statutory rate, namely TRY[1] 10,485 (approximately EUR 5,600).
COMPLAINTS
10. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the authorities had delayed in paying the compensation awarded to him by the Karşıyaka Assize Court and that no default interest had been applied to the initial amount of compensation despite high inflation rates.
11. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant maintained that Law no. 466 did not provide an effective remedy in respect of his Article 1 of Protocol No.1 grievances.
THE LAW
A. As to the complaint regarding late enforcement of the domestic court decision
12. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the authorities’ delay in enforcing the domestic court’s judgment constituted a breach of his right to property.
13. The Government contested the claims.
14. The Court recalls that a person who has obtained a judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings (see Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004, and Arat and Others v. Turkey, nos. 42894/04, 42904/04, 42905/04, 42906/04, 42907/04, 42908/04, 42909/04 and 42910/04, § 19, 13 January 2009). The burden to ensure compliance with a judgment against the State lies primarily with the State authorities starting from the date on which the judgment becomes binding and enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002‑III). However, a successful litigant may be required to undertake certain procedural steps in order to recover the judgment debt (see Shvedov v. Russia, no. 69306/01, § 32, 20 October 2005, and Osman Erden v. Turkey, no. 1520/06, § 16, 26 January 2011). The creditor’s uncooperative behaviour may be an obstacle to timely enforcement of a judgment, thus alleviating the authorities’ responsibility for delays (see Belayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 36020/02, 22 March 2011).
15. In the present case, the Court observes that even though the final decision of the Court of Cassation was deposited with the first instance court’s registry on 3 September 2004, the applicant obtained a copy of the said judgment only on 2 March 2006. Moreover, he did not apply to the administration until 14 December 2006. It is further observed that upon his request, the outstanding amount was paid by the administration within eleven days.
16. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the delay in question is attributable to the applicant, who was under an obligation to show due diligence, take reasonable steps to obtain a copy of the decision and initiate enforcement proceedings. Consequently, the authorities cannot be held responsible under the Convention for the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 9 June 2003.
17. It follows that this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
B. Other Complaints
18. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that no default interest had been applied to the compensation awarded to him despite high inflation rates. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that Law No. 466 did not provide an effective remedy in respect of his Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 grievances.
19. In the light of the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
20. It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill‑founded, pursuant to 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 1 March 2018.
Hasan BakırcıLedi Bianku
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1]1. On 1 January 2005 the Turkish lira (TRY) entered into circulation, replacing the former Turkish lira (TRL). TRY 1 = TRL 1,000,000.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy