THIRD SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 60202/00 by YaÅŸar Mehmet BALCI against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section), sitting on 24 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič , President , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr R. Türmen , Mrs E. Fura-Sandström , Mrs A. Gyulumyan , Mrs I. Ziemele , Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre, judges ,

and Mr S. Quesada , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 March 2000,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

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

The applicant, Mr Yaşar Mehmet Balc ı , is a Turkish- Cypriot national who was born in 1932 and lives in Mersin (in the “TRNC [1] ”) . He was represented before the Court by Ms Kaya, a lawyer practising in London . The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was the owner of three plots of land (plot nos. X11/22 E2-348, 357 and 358-1) situated along the east coast of Girne (Kyrenia). Since 1974 these plots have been used by the Turkish military forces for a military base.

On 15 July 1998 the applicant petitioned the Ministry of Defence of Turkey requesting compensation for his land. On 22 October 1998 he was informed that the “TRNC” authorities had commenced the procedure to expropriate the land in question pursuant to the Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law.

On 11 August 1999 Notice no. 487 was published in the Official Gazette of the “TRNC”, pursuant to Section 4 of the Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law. According to the Notice, plot nos. X11/22 E2 ‑ 348, 357 and 358 ‑ 1 were to be compulsorily acquired for national security reasons. The Notice provided that any objections should be addressed to the Ministry of Labour, Settlement and Social Security within fifteen days of the publication.

On 4 November 1999 Notice no. 673 was published in the Official Gazette of the “TRNC”, pursuant to Section 6 of the Compulsory Acquisition Law. According to this Notice, as there had been no objections, the Government ordered the compulsory acquisition of the plots of land referred to in Notice no. 487.

The applicant claims that he learned of the existence of Notice no. 487 on 15 December 1999, verbally, from an official at the Girne Land Registry office.

On 14 January 2000 the Girne Land Registry sent an offer of compensation to the applicant, amounting to 162,500 pounds sterling (GBP) to be converted into Turkish liras.

On 14 February 2000 the applicant filed an action for compensation with the Girne District Court, sitting as the Compensation Assessment Court ( Takdiri Tazminat Mahkemesi ).

During the proceedings, the applicant claimed that the market value of property in the area was between GBP 80,000 and GBP 90,000 per dönüm [2] . The experts called by the applicant confirmed that the market value of the land in question was GBP 80,000 per dönüm. The court also heard from the experts called by the defendant party, who in turn alleged that the market value was GBP 11,000 per dönüm. The evaluation by the defendant party ’ s experts was based on the declarations made to the Land Registry office. On 31 May 2005 the Girne District Court rendered its decision. It expressed its concerns about the amount stated by the defendant party ’ s experts, stating that buyers tended to undervalue their property at the Land Registry office in order to reduce the fees and charges. As a result, it awarded the applicant GBP 80,000 per dönüm. In sum, the applicant was granted GBP 1,300,000 (approximately 1,916,000 euros) by way of compensation for 16 ¼ dönüms of land.

On 12 July 2005, considering the amount of compensation excessive, the Attorney General filed an appeal against this decision. The proceedings are still pending before the Court of Appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been unjustifiably deprived of his property without receiving any compensation.

Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant maintained that he had been denied access to a court. In this respect, he argued, that as he had not been duly notified of the decision of compulsory acquisition, he could not file an objection against it.

The applicant further stated under Article 13 of the Convention that he was not compensated for the use of his property.

The applicant finally submitted under Article 3 of the Convention that the manner in which the domestic authorities have been dealing with his complaints constituted degrading and inhuman treatment.

THE LAW

1. The applicant maintained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he was unlawfully deprived of his land without any compensation.

The Government argued that the applicant has not exhausted the domestic remedies in respect of his complaint.

The Court notes that the applicant mainly complains about the fact that he was deprived of his land without any compensation.

It is however observed that the compensation proceedings which were commenced before the Girne District Court on 14 February 2000 are still pending before the Court of Appeal.

Accordingly, this part of the application is premature. The Court notes that, after the final ruling is given in the case, it would be open to the applicant to re-submit his complaint to the Court if he still considered himself a victim of any alleged violation.

In view of the above, this complaint should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to access to court had been breached as he had not been notified about the acquisition order.

The Court recalls that in the present case, the land in question has been used by the military forces as a base since 1974. Since then, the applicant has made several requests to different authorities asking compensation for his land. It is also an undisputed fact that on 22 October 1998 the applicant was informed that the “TRNC” authorities had commenced the expropriation procedure and was therefore on notice that steps would be taken under the Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law.

The Court considers that the applicant ’ s main complaint is essentially about the lack of compensation in which regard proceedings are still pending. In the circumstances of the present case, therefore, it is not persuaded that the procedure whereby formal notification of the compulsory acquisition was, as required by law, published in the Official Gazette, and not served on the applicant personally, deprived him of access to court. Accordingly, the Court finds that this part of the application is unsubstantiated and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

3. The applicant further complained under Article 13 that he had not been paid compensation for the deprivation of his property.

The Court recalls that the compensation proceedings are still pending before the national courts. Accordingly, this part of the application is premature. The Court notes that, after the final ruling is given in the case, it would be open to the applicant to re-submit his complaint if he still considered himself a victim of any alleged violation.

In view of the above, this complaint should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

4. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the manner in which the domestic authorities have been dealing with his complaints.

The Government submitted that the applicant failed to introduce this complaint within six months as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They stated that no mention of this complaint was made in the initial application form and that it was only raised subsequently in the applicant ’ s replies to the Government ’ s observations.

The Court does not consider it necessary to decide whether the applicant may be considered to have complied with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since this complaint should in any case be declared inadmissible for the following reason.

It is recalled that, to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention, the alleged treatment must attain a minimum level of severity (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 162).

In the present case there is no indication that the treatment complained of reached the threshold of severity required to bring the matter within the scope of Article 3.

It follows that this part of the application should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 o f the Convention.

Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Santiago Quesada Boštjan M. Zupančič Registrar President

[1] “ Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ” .

[2] One dönüm is equivalent to 920 square metres .