The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 November 2014 as a Committee composed of: Helen Keller, President, Egidijus Kūris, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 February 2006, Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Mahmut Yıldız, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Çepik, a lawyer practising in Şanlıurfa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. The applicant had been the shareholder of two companies, M.Y.A.Ş and H.İ.L.Ş (hereinafter referred to as “the...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 9050/06 Mahmut YILDIZ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 November 2014 as a Committee composed of: Helen Keller, President, Egidijus Kūris, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 February 2006, Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Mahmut Yıldız, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Çepik, a lawyer practising in Şanlıurfa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. The applicant had been the shareholder of two companies, M.Y.A.Ş and H.İ.L.Ş (hereinafter referred to as “the companies”). He held 40% and 75% of the shares respectively. 4. On an unspecified date a certain Mr H.P. initiated enforcement proceedings against the companies for the recovery of a debt. 5. Mr S. Çepik, acting as the legal representative of the companies, brought an action in the Şanlıurfa Civil Court of First Instance with a view
2 MAHMUT YILDIZ v. TURKEY DECISION to establish that the companies did not, contrary to what had been alleged, owe Mr H.P. any money. 6. In order to stop the pending enforcement proceedings, on 12 August 2003 the companies deposited a certain amount of money in the Şanlıurfa Enforcement Directorate’s account at Şeker Bank as guarantee. 7. On 23 July 2004, the companies informed the court of their intention to withdraw the action (feragat). Following their withdrawal, on 26 July 2004 the Şanlıurfa Civil Court of First Instance decided to return the guarantee deposited by the companies. The court also decided that the interest accrued on the guarantee should be transferred to the Treasury in accordance with section 36 (1) of the Charges Act. The companies objected to this decision. 8. On 29 September 2004 taking into account the companies’ withdrawal from the proceedings, the court dismissed the case. In its decision, the court refused to examine the companies’ request concerning the application of section 36 (1) of the Charges Act on the ground that it had already decided on this matter. The companies appealed the decision. 9. On 30 September 2005 the Court of Cassation, referring to the statutory nature of section 36 (1) of the Charges Act, upheld the judgment of the first instance court. On 20 December 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed a request by the companies for a rectification of its decision. 10. The applicant sold all his shares for the two companies in years 2004 and 2008. B. Relevant domestic law 11. Section 36 (1) of the Charges Act stipulates that any interest accrued on amounts deposited in banks in respect of judi...