The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 October 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 application lodged on 3 August 2005, 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 Fatma Ekinci (Öztürk), Ms Ayşe Özalp (Öztürk), Mr Hasan Hüseyin Öztürk, Ms Dudu Bayraktar (Öztürk), Ms Emine Urgur (Öztürk), Ms Hatice Gümüş (Öztürk), Mr Ramazan Öztürk, Mr Ahmet Öztürk and Ms Melek Arıkan (Öztürk) are nine Turkish nationals. They were born in 1924, 1926, 1929, 1930, 1935, 1938, 1943, 1946 and 1955 respectively and live in Denizli. They were represented before...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 29833/05 Hasan Hüseyin ÖZTÜRK and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 October 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 application lodged on 3 August 2005, 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 Fatma Ekinci (Öztürk), Ms Ayşe Özalp (Öztürk), Mr Hasan Hüseyin Öztürk, Ms Dudu Bayraktar (Öztürk), Ms Emine Urgur (Öztürk), Ms Hatice Gümüş (Öztürk), Mr Ramazan Öztürk, Mr Ahmet Öztürk and Ms Melek Arıkan (Öztürk) are nine Turkish nationals. They were born in 1924, 1926, 1929, 1930, 1935, 1938, 1943, 1946 and 1955 respectively and live in Denizli. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Eraydın, a lawyer practising in Denizli. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
2 ÖZTÜRK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION 4. The applicants had a plot of land in the Acıpayam District of Denizli, which had been registered in the land register as block no. 118, parcel no. 2. 5. On 2 May 1996 the Acıpayam Municipality decided to expropriate the applicants’ land. The applicants were officially notified of the expropriation decision by a notice served through the notary public. It was indicated in the notice that the amount of expropriation compensation was fixed at 3,751,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL)1. 6. On an unspecified date in 1996 the applicants applied to the Aydın Administrative Court in order to have the expropriation decision and the local land development plan which was the basis of expropriation decision set aside. The Aydın Administrative Court held that it lacked jurisdiction ratione loci, as the applicants’ case should be assessed by the Denizli Administrative Court. On 5 June 2003 the Denizli Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ case. The applicants did not appeal against this decision and it became final on 15 September 2003. 7. On 25 November 1996 the applicants brought a civil action before the Acıpayam Civil Court of First Instance and claimed TRL 15,888,000,000 in additional compensation for expropriation. 8. On 18 February 2004 the Acıpayam Civil Court of First Instance awarded the applicants TRL 5,490,600,588 (the equivalent of approximately 3,240 euros (EUR) at the time) as additional compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate. The applicants’ appeal and rectification requests were subsequently rejected by the Court of Cassation and the decision became final on 14 January 2005. The final decision was served on the applicants’ representati...