The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 September 2016 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı , Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the cases 2. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. The applicants’ respective plots of land were expropriated by the administration. Subsequently, pursuant to section 10 of Law...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 39258/05 Ahmet ÇAKMAK against Turkey and 24 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 September 2016 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı , Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the cases 2. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. The applicants’ respective plots of land were expropriated by the administration. Subsequently, pursuant to section 10 of Law no. 2942 proceedings were initiated before the first instance courts to determine the amount of compensations that should be awarded to the applicants. Based on expert reports, the domestic courts established the amount of
2 ÇAKMAK v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION compensations and these judgments were subsequently upheld by the Court of Cassation. No interest was applied to the amounts paid. The details of the applications may be found in the appendix. B. Relevant domestic law and practice 4. A description of the domestic law regarding the new remedy introduced by Law no. 6384 may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINTS 5. Relying on Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complained about the financial loss they had suffered as a result of the late payment of the expropriation amounts. In this connection, they maintained that no interest had been applied to the amounts awarded by the courts, that the payment had not been made pursuant to Article 46 of the Constitution, and that the authorities had not complied with the three and a half month time-limit in paying the awarded sums. 6. Some of the applicants also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts had erred in the calculation of the awards. 7. Furthermore, in some cases, the applicants alleged under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for their home had been breached as a result of the expropriation. THE LAW 8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. A. Complaint regarding the alleged financial loss suffered by the applicants 9. Relying on Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ...