The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 January 2017 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 April 2006, 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, Petrol Hizmetleri Anonim Şirketi, is a joint-stock company registered in Turkey. It is represented by Mr. C. Mumcu, a lawyer practicing in Ankara. 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. In November 2002 the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 19958/06 PETROL HİZMETLERİ A.Ş. against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 January 2017 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 April 2006, 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, Petrol Hizmetleri Anonim Şirketi, is a joint-stock company registered in Turkey. It is represented by Mr. C. Mumcu, a lawyer practicing in Ankara. 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. In November 2002 the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality commenced expropriation proceedings concerning a plot of land belonging to the applicant company. As no agreement was reached on the amount of compensation for the expropriation, on 28 July 2003 the Municipality brought an action in the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, seeking
2 PETROL HİZMETLERİ A.Ş. v. TURKEY DECISION an assessment of the value of the land and the registration of the land in the name of the Municipality. 4. On 20 April 2005 the court, based on expert reports, found it established that the value of the land had amounted to 178,173 Turkish Liras (TRY) (approximately 114,800 Euros (EUR)) at the time when the proceedings had been initiated. The court accordingly directed that that sum together with a default interest, running from the litigation date, had to be paid to the applicant company. It further decided that the title to the land had to be transferred to the Municipality. 5. On 24 October 2005 the Court of Cassation essentially upheld the judgment given by the first-instance court. It however amended it and ordered that no interest should be applied to the amount of compensation awarded for expropriation. B. Relevant domestic law and practice 6. A description of the domestic law regarding the new remedy introduced by Law no. 6384 (see paragraph 9) may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINTS 7. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant company complained that the amount of compensation awarded for expropriation had depreciated considerably due to lapse of time and the failure of the domestic courts to apply any default interest to the compensation amount. The applicant company also maintained that the domestic courts erred in the calculation of the compensation award. THE LAW A. Complaint regarding the alleged financial loss suffered by ...