The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 June 2016 as a Committee composed of: Valeriu Griţco, President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, 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 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 case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1999, the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (“the Ministry”) expropriated certain plots of land belonging to the applicants...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 40437/06 Celal DEMİR against Turkey and 57 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 June 2016 as a Committee composed of: Valeriu Griţco, President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, 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 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 case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1999, the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (“the Ministry”) expropriated certain plots of land belonging to the applicants for construction of a dam in Birecik. The applicants initiated compensation proceedings for additional compensation plus interest at statutory rate. The
2 DEMİR v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION payments were made six to ten years after the date of expropriation. The details of the applications appear in the table below. B. Relevant domestic law A description of the domestic law regarding the new remedy introduced by Law no. 6384 can be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained that the excessive delay in the payment of the additional compensation awards, coupled with the low interest rates, had caused them substantial financial loss. In this respect, they relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the late payment of the additional compensation awards. The Court will examine these complaints solely under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, Yetiş and Others v. Turkey, no. 40349/05, § 63, 6 July 2010, and Güleç and Armut v. Turkey (dec.), no. 25969/09, 16 November 2010). The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. They further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged loss of value of the amount of the expropriation compensat...