FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 7673/02 by Atiye AKG Ü L against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President, Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr R. Türmen , Mr K. Traja , Mr J. Šikuta , Mrs P. Hirvelä , judges, and Mr T.L. Early , Section Reg i strar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 January 2002,

Having regard to the partial decision of 8 December 2005,

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, Atiye Akg ü l , is a Turkish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Iskenderun . She is represented before the Court by Mr I . K . Y ı ld ı r ı m and Mr G. Nurtin , lawyers practising in Ankara .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 15 June 1998 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a part of a plot of land (plot no. 147) belonging to the applicant in Belen . A committee of experts had assessed the value of the land and an amount of compensation was paid to the applicant at the time of the expropriation .

On 21 December 1998 the applicant filed a case with the Iskenderun Civil Court of First Instance and requested additional compensation.

On 26 October 1999 the Iskenderun Civil Court of First Instance awarded the applicant additional compensation of 32,632,776,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 64,361 euros (EUR) ) plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 19 November 1998.

On 9 May 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first ‑ instance court.

The applicant commenced enforcement proceedings. On 23 July 2001 the ad ministration paid the applicant the amount of TRL 86,623,450,000 (approximately EUR 75,300 ) covering additional compensation and interest, as well as costs and expenses.

B. Rele vant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the Gül and Others v. Turkey (( dec .), no. 44715/98, 18 March 2004).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention that the rate of interest for delays, payable on the additional compensation for expropriation, was too low and that the expropriating authority had further delayed in settling the relevant amount.

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the State had failed to settle the additional compensation to be paid for the expropriation within a reasonable time.

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the rate of interest for delays, payable on the additional compensation for expropriation, was too low and that the expropriating authority had further delayed in settling the relevant amount. She further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the State had failed to settle the additional compensation for expropriation within a reasonable time.

The Court considers that these complaints should be examined from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone, which provides:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

The Government suggested that the applicant had not suffered any material loss as a result of the interest rates applied and the authorities ’ delay in settling the relevant amount.

The applicant maintained her allegations.

The Court notes that the additional compensation together with interest at the rate of 50 % per annum, and from 1 January 2000 at the rate of 60 % per annum, was paid to the applicant on 23 July 2001, that is to say one year and two months after the judgment of the first-instance court had become final. It finds that - using the same method of calculation as in the AkkuÅŸ v. Turkey , judgment of 9 July 1997 ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ IV, p. 1311, §§ 35, 36 and 39) and having regard to the relevant economic data at the material time - on the date of payment the applicant received approximately 97.40 % of the full compensation. However, the Court considers that such a minor difference (less than 5%) can be considered to have resulted from the methods of calculation used by the Court and the national authorities (see, in particular, Arabacı v. Turkey ( dec .), no. 65714/01, 7 March 2002). In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the total amount of money paid to the applicant was satisfactory, even if it does not seem to constitute full compensation (see, among many other authorities, Sanlı and Others v. Turkey ( dec .), no. 5043/02, 3 July 2006; and Tarcan v. Turkey ( dec .), no. 19524/02, 23 May 2006). Consequently, the applicant cannot be regarded as having suffered any serious loss due to the interest rates applied and the deferral of payment.

The Court concludes that the application is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. The application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should therefore be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President