The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Rıza Türmen, Mindia Ugrekhelidze, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Antonella Mularoni, Dragoljub Popović, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 April 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. 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. The applicants, Ms Elif Akın, Ms Özlem Ünal, Ms Yeşim Tayfur, Ms Emel Koşkun, Ms Halime Akın, Mr Mehmet Ünsal Akın, Ms Gönül Akın and Mr Vural Akın, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973, 1972, 1971,...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 27747/02 by Elif AKIN and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Rıza Türmen, Mindia Ugrekhelidze, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Antonella Mularoni, Dragoljub Popović, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 April 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. 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. The applicants, Ms Elif Akın, Ms Özlem Ünal, Ms Yeşim Tayfur, Ms Emel Koşkun, Ms Halime Akın, Mr Mehmet Ünsal Akın, Ms Gönül Akın and Mr Vural Akın, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973, 1972, 1971, 1949, 1925, 1978, 1946 and 1951 respectively, and live
2 AKIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION in Turkey. They are represented before the Court by Mr B. Orta, a lawyer practising in Tekirdağ. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 23 August 2000 the General Directorate of Roads and Highways expropriated four plots of land belonging to the applicants in the Seymen village of Çorlu, for a highway construction. The Directorate assessed the value of the land and paid the applicants 5,000,000 Turkish Liras (TRL) per square metre. 4. On 1 September 2000, i.e., within the 30-day prescription period, the applicants brought an action before the Çorlu Civil Court for increased compensation, requesting 12,000,000 TRL per square metre. 5. The court appointed a committee of experts, who conducted an on-site property inspection on 3 November 2000. They found that the land had been significantly undervalued and assessed it at 34,000,000 TRL per square metre. 6. Given the considerable discrepancy between this evaluation and that of the administration, the court appointed another committee of experts. This new committee conducted an examination on 15 December 2000 and valued the land at 22,000,000 TRL per square metre. 7. On 8 January 2001 the applicants filed a petition with the same court for “amendment” (ıslah) of their claim. They argued that they had been unaware of the real value of their property revealed by the expert reports. On that basis, they requested that their original claim be increased to 22,000,000 TRL per square metre, relying on the lower of the two expert assessments. 8. On 16 February 2001 the court denied the request. It held that the petition had been filed outside of the 30-day period stipulated for expropriation-related compensati...