The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 February 2016 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Abel Campos, 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. The list of the applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, is set out in the appendix. 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. On various dates, the applicants respectively initiated proceedings against administrative authorities and they were awarded compensation. The relevant administrative authorities did not pay the amounts in dispute. The details of...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45115/05 Tülay ÇAKAR against Turkey and 3 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 February 2016 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Abel Campos, 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. The list of the applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, is set out in the appendix. 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. On various dates, the applicants respectively initiated proceedings against administrative authorities and they were awarded compensation. The relevant administrative authorities did not pay the amounts in dispute. The details of the applications may be found in the attached table.
2 ÇAKAR v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION B. Relevant domestic law 4. A description of the domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013, and Demiroğlu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013. COMPLAINTS 5. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that despite the domestic court judgments given in their favour, the administrative authorities did not pay the amounts in dispute. THE LAW 6. The applicants complained about the loss they had suffered as a result of the non-payment of the compensation amounts awarded by domestic courts. 7. The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 of 9 January 2013 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-enforcement of judgments. They further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged loss of value of the amount of the expropriation compensation due to the effects of inflation and the length of the proceedings. Accordingly, they maintained that the applications should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as the applicants should avail themselves of the remedy before the Compensation Commission. 8. The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Demiroğlu v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013), the Court declared an application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the n...