The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 March 2017 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Valeriu Griţco, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 February 2009, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Lutfi Tekin, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Mersin. He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Yılmaz, a lawyer practising in Anamur. 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. 4. On 26 January 1999 the...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 13319/09 Lutfi TEKİN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 March 2017 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Valeriu Griţco, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 February 2009, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Lutfi Tekin, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Mersin. He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Yılmaz, a lawyer practising in Anamur. 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. 4. On 26 January 1999 the Municipality of Çarıklar concluded a contract with the applicant’s company authorising the latter to run a gravel pit within its control, for five years. 5. On 15 June 1999 the Municipality unilaterally revoked the contract.
2 TEKİN v. TURKEY DECISION 6. On 18 June 1999 the operation of the company was terminated. 7. On 12 July 1999 the applicant filed an action against the Municipality claiming the recovery of his financial loss caused by the unilateral revocation of the contract. 8. On 17 January 2007 the Anamur Civil Court accepted the applicant’s action and ordered the Municipality to pay 12,055 Turkish liras (TRY) along with interest to the applicant. 9. The applicant brought enforcement proceedings against the Municipality for the payment of the amount awarded by the domestic court. 10. On 23 October 2008 the Anamur Execution Office issued a proof of debt against the Municipality, stating that the unsecured debt in the applicant’s account was TRY 60,620 up to that date. 11. At the date of lodging the case, the municipality had still not paid the due amount determined by the domestic court. B. Relevant domestic law 12. A description of the domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013 and Demiroğlu and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013. COMPLAINTS 13. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the failure of the national authorities to comply with the domestic court judgment for a long period of time. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant further alleged that there was no effective remedy in domestic law by which he could compel the administration to honour its debt. THE LAW A. As to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 14. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-execution of domestic court judgments. 15....