Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 175
June 2014
Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.) - 44013/07
Decision 27.5.2014 [Section II]
Article 35
Article 35-1
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Effective domestic remedy
Application to compensation board under decree of 16 March 2014 in respect of devaluation of awards in expropriation cases: Effective remedy
Facts – In a decision dated May 2003 the creation of rights of way for the construction of an underground gas pipeline was declared to be in the public interest. The applicants complained about the depreciation of the compensation awarded to them between the date when the amount was determined and the date of actual payment.
Law – Article 35 § 1: The decree of 16 March 2014 gave the compensation commission powers to examine certain categories of applications lodged with the European Court before 23 March 2013. Those categories were the subject of well-established case-law, including in relation to depreciation in the value of amounts awarded for expropriation (see, among other authorities, the judgment in Yetiş and Others v. Turkey). The commission thus acquired competence to award compensation for each individual situation examined, in accordance with the case-law of the Strasbourg Court. The compensation awarded by the commission was to be paid by the Ministry of Justice within three months from the date when the commission’s decision became final. The commission’s decisions were subject to appeal before the regional administrative court, which was required to rule within three months. The persons concerned could appeal against the decisions of the regional administrative court before the Constitutional Court. Following that decision, any individual could apply to the Strasbourg Court with a Convention complaint, which could potentially result in a review of the effectiveness of the remedy introduced by Law no. 6384* in the light of the practice and the decisions of the compensation commission and the domestic courts. The burden of proof regarding the effectiveness of that remedy would then lie with the respondent State. The Court’s ultimate supervisory jurisdiction remained in respect of any complaints lodged by applicants who, in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, had exhausted available avenues of redress.
It followed that the applicants’ complaint concerning the depreciation in the value of the award for expropriation had to be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
Conclusion: inadmissible (unanimously).
The Court also held the remainder of the application to be inadmissible because of the extension of the commission’s competence ratione temporis from 23 September 2012 to 23 March 2013, which also had the effect of encompassing cases concerning the length of proceedings and delayed enforcement of judicial decisions in so far as they had been lodged with the Court during that period in accordance with the six-month rule.
(See Yetiş and Others v. Turkey, 40349/05, 6 July 2010, Information Note 132)
* Law concerning the settlement by compensation of certain applications lodged with the European Court of Human Rights.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy