The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 December 2005 as a Chamber composed of: Mr B.M. ZUPANČIČ, President, Mr J. HEDIGAN, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, Mr E. MYJER, Mr DAVID THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON, Ms I. ZIEMELE, judges, and Mr V. BERGER, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 July 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 applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mustafa Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1919 and lives in Kahta. He is represented before the Court by Ms R. Bozan, a lawyer practising in Kahta. The facts of the case, as submitted by the...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 33903/02 by Mustafa YILMAZ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 December 2005 as a Chamber composed of: Mr B.M. ZUPANČIČ, President, Mr J. HEDIGAN, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, Mr E. MYJER, Mr DAVID THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON, Ms I. ZIEMELE, judges, and Mr V. BERGER, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 July 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 applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mustafa Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1919 and lives in Kahta. He is represented before the Court by Ms R. Bozan, a lawyer practising in Kahta. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date the Kahta Municipality expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant, who received compensation.
2 MUSTAFA YILMAZ v. TURKEY DECISION On 10 March 2000 the applicant brought an action for additional compensation before the Kahta Civil Court of First Instance against the Municipality. On 14 June 2000 the Civil Court awarded the applicant additional compensation of TRL 16,064,000,000 plus an interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision. On 27 June 2000 the applicant lodged a further action for damages caused to the crops on his land. On 18 July 2000 the court awarded the applicant TRL 300,000,000 with a statutory rate of interest added. On 21 December 2000 and 15 January 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the above judgments. On 22 June 2005 the applicant’s representative and the Kahta Municipality signed a protocol by which the Municipality declared that it was to pay the applicant 58,150 new Turkish liras (YTL) including the principal debt, the interest rates, all costs and expenses, and the lawyer’s fee. According to the protocol, this sum would be paid in three instalments YTL 20,000 on 17 July 2005, YTL 20,000 on 15 August 2005, and YTL 18,150 on 15 September 2005 respectively. In return, the applicant declared that no claim or credit would remain in favour of him when the total amount was paid to him or his representative. By a letter dated 23 September 2005, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that they had received the last instalment on 15 September 2005, and thus full sum had been paid. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the non-payment of the sums he was awarded by the domestic court. THE LAW By a letter dated 29 August 2005, the Government informed the Court that the Kahta Municipality had si...