Application no. 31299/96
by Ahmet BAYGÜL
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 May 2002 as a Chamber composed of
Mr G. Ress, President,
Mr L. Caflisch,
Mr P. Kūris,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr J. Hedigan,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mrs H.S. Greve, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 January 1996,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case submitted by the Government and the applicant and received by the Court on 11 January 2002 and 14 February 2002 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Ahmet Baygül, is a Turkish national born in 1944 and lives in Balıkesir. He is represented before the Court by Mr Turgut İnal and Mrs Ferhunde İnal, lawyers practising in Balıkesir.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 March 1993 land belonging to the applicant was expropriated by order of the Ministry of Finance and Customs. This decision was served on the applicant on 29 September 1993 and as he did not challenge this decision before national courts, the expropriation decision became final on 11 November 1993.
Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 31 May 1994 the Balıkesir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded him an additional compensation plus interest at the rate of 30% per annum. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 10 November 1994. However, the due amount was not paid to the applicant.
Details are indicated in the table below.
DATE ON WHICH THE EXPROPRIATION DECISION BECAME FINAL
DATE OF FINAL DECISION BY THE COURT OF CASSATION AS REGARDS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF STATE DEBT ON THE DATE OF FINAL DECISION (in Turkish Liras)
DATE OF PAYMENT
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey was approximately 70%, he had been paid insufficient interest rate (30% per annum) for additional compensation received following the expropriation of his land. The applicant submits that by deferring the compensation, national authorities rendered it inadequate.
Following informal contacts between the applicant’s and the Government’s representatives, the Section Registrar was asked to assist the parties in reaching a solution to the matter. As a result, the Registrar addressed draft declarations to the parties.
The Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay 5,800 (five thousand eight hundred) United States dollars to Mr Ahmet Baygül with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no. 31299/96. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court...
This sum shall be paid in US dollars to a bank account named by the applicant, free of any taxes and charges that may be applicable. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case...”
The Court received the following declaration from the representative of the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay the sum of 5,800 (five thousand eight hundred) United States dollars covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Mr Ahmet Baygül with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application no. 31299/96 pending before the Court.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.
This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and the applicant have reached...”
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols and considers that there is no reason which would justify the continuation of the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of the Court).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent Berger Georg Ress
BAYGUL v. TURKEY DECISION
BAYGUL v. TURKEY DECISION