The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 February 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 applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. Before the Court, they are represented by Mr A. Çağer, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 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 3 August 1990 the administration expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants. Following the applicants’ request, the Birecik Civil Court of First Instance...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 17594/08 SARCAN and CAN against Turkey and 5 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 February 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 applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. Before the Court, they are represented by Mr A. Çağer, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 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 3 August 1990 the administration expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants. Following the applicants’ request, the Birecik Civil Court of First Instance awarded additional compensation to them. These judgments were upheld by the Court of Cassation. 5. The applicants initiated enforcement proceedings.
2 SARCAN AND CAN v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 6. According to the information in the case files, the administration has still not paid the full amounts. 7. The details of the applications may be found in the attached table. B. Relevant domestic law 8. A description of the domestic law and practice with respect to the Compensation Commission mentioned below may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINTS 9. Relying on Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complained about the financial loss they had suffered as a result of late payment of the expropriation amounts. In this connection, they further complained that the expropriation proceedings in question had not been concluded within a reasonable time and the domestic court decisions had not been fully enforced. 10. The applicants also stated under Article 6 of the Convention that the judgment of the Birecik Civil Court of First Instance lacked sufficient reasoning. 11. The applicants further complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that there had been no review mechanism. THE LAW 12. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. A. As regards the application lodged by Mr Müslüm Sarcan (Application no. 17954/08) 13. The Court notes that one of the applicants in application no. 17954/08, namely Mr Müslüm Sarcan, had died on 7 May 2003 prior to the introduction of the present application with the Court. In this connection, the Court points out that an application cannot be broug...