Přehled
Rozhodnutí
THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 958/02
by Ali and Hüseyin AKSU
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr B.M. Zupančič, President,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David Thór Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Ziemele,
Mrs I. Berro-Lefevre, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 September 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Hüseyin Aksu and Mr Ali Aksu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949 and 1960 respectively and live in Antalya. They are represented before the Court by Mr N. Abay, a lawyer practising in Antalya.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
In 1997 the General Directorate of National Airports (Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü-D.H.M.İ) issued an order for the expropriation of the applicants’ plot of land in Antalya. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the amounts so assessed were paid to the applicants.
On 31 December 1997 the applicants brought an action for additional compensation before the Antalya Civil Court of First Instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi).
On 2 June 1998 the first-instance court decided to award the applicants additional compensation of 18,489,937,732 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 11 January 1998.
On 18 January 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and ordered the latter to request additional expert reports.
On 19 September 2000, following the examination of additional reports, the Antalya Civil Court of First Instance decided to award the applicants additional compensation of TRL 5,424,796,955 plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 11 January 1998.
On 21 November 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 19 September 2000.
On an unspecified date, the applicants requested the rectification of the Court of Cassation’s decision.
On 15 February 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed their request.
On 10 April 2001 the administration paid the applicants the sum of TRL 14,967,050,000 including interest.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain, without invoking any Article of the Convention, that they did not have a fair trial as the domestic courts failed to assess the facts correctly and awarded them a low amount of compensation.
The applicants further contend, without invoking any Article of the Convention, that the rate of interest for delay payable on the additional compensation for expropriation was too low and that the expropriating authority delayed in settling the relevant amount.
THE LAW
1. The applicants allege that they did not have a fair trial on account of the domestic courts’ failure to assess the facts correctly and of the low amount of the compensation awarded to them.
The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It further notes that there is no indication in the case-file that the applicants could not duly present their arguments or state their case fully; nor is there any other indication of unfairness or arbitrariness concerning the assessment of the facts or evidence or the interpretation of the domestic law within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicants complain that they were paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following the expropriation of the plot of land and that the authorities delayed in paying them the relevant amount.
The Court considers that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning the national authorities’ delay in paying additional compensation for expropriation and damage sustained by the applicants as a result of the low interest rate applied to State debts;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President