The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26 November 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, Peer Lorenzen, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 July 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Fahrettin Köksal, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1934 and lives in Ankara. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1. Main compensation proceedings 3. In 1989 the applicant brought an action for compensation against a privately-owned bank, namely the Yapı Kredi Bankası A.Ş., on account of the latter’s default on a contractual obligation under a loan agreement. 2 KÖKSAL v. TURKEY...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 30253/06 Fahrettin KÖKSAL against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26 November 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, Peer Lorenzen, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 July 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Fahrettin Köksal, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1934 and lives in Ankara. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1. Main compensation proceedings 3. In 1989 the applicant brought an action for compensation against a privately-owned bank, namely the Yapı Kredi Bankası A.Ş., on account of the latter’s default on a contractual obligation under a loan agreement.
2 KÖKSAL v. TURKEY DECISION 4. On 16 March 1993 the Istanbul Commercial Court ordered the payment of 120,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL1) to the applicant, plus interest at the rediscount rate running from the date the action was brought, which was the highest rate of interest available in commercial disputes, as compensation. The Court of Cassation quashed this judgment. 5. On an unspecified date, the Istanbul Commercial Court ordered the payment of TRL 151,560,400 to the applicant, together with interest at the rediscount rate running from the same date. 6. Following the upholding of this judgment by the Court of Cassation, on 22 April 1996 the bank paid the applicant TRL 728,990,000. 2. First additional action for compensation 7. Relying on Article 105 of the Code of Obligations in force at the material time (“the former Code of Obligations”), on 28 May 1996 the applicant brought an additional action for compensation (“munzam zararın tazmini davası”) before the 8th Chamber of the Istanbul Commercial Court. He claimed TRL 2,200,000,000, with interest at the rediscount rate for the further loss he had suffered on account of the significant disparity between the interest applied to the judgment debt and the high inflation rate (case no. 1996/610). While bringing this action, the applicant reserved his right to increase his claim in due course. 8. On 9 October 1997 the applicant brought an additional action (ek dava) before the 4th Chamber of the Istanbul Commercial Court to increase his previous claim in relation to the same dispute, and requested TRL 13,000,000,000 as compensation, with interest at the rediscount rate (case no. 1997/1080). 9. On an unspecified date the two cases were merged under case no. 1996/610 before the 8th Chamber of the Istanbul Commercial Court. 10. On 18 December 1997 the 8th Chamber of the Istanbul Commercial Court granted the applicant’s request and ordered the payment of a total amount of TRL 15,200,000,000 to the applicant, with interest at the ...