SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 44697/07 Hüseyin Ferhat AKSU against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23 January 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Ledi Bianku , President, Nebojša Vučinić , Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 September 2007,

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

1. The applicant, Mr Hüseyin Ferhat Aksu , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1980 and lives in I stanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr Ali Rıza Aksu , a lawyer practising in I stanbul.

2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

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

4. On an unspecified date, a plot of land (no. 141) located in Istanbul was seized by the General Directorate of Highways for the construction of a highway.

A. The first set of proceedings

5. On 30 January 2003 some of the co-owners of plot no. 141 initiated proceedings before the Tuzla Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, claiming compensation for de facto expropriation.

6. By a contract concluded on 3 February 2003, co-owners transferred their claim to the applicant.

7. On 21 May 2004 the Tuzla Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded the applicant 93,827,922,154 Turkish Liras (TRL) [1] (approximately 49,000 euros (EUR)) with an interest at the statutory rate.

8. On 14 March 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court.

9. On 27 March 2007 the administration paid the applicant 180,726 Turkish Liras (TRY) ( approximately EUR 97,000).

10. According to the document issued by the Enforcement Office on 15 December 2009, the administration still had an outstanding debt of TRY 16,413 Turkish Liras ( approximately EUR 7,460).

B. The second set of proceedings

11. On 6 February 2003 remaining co-owners of plot no. 141 initiated proceedings before the Tuzla Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, claiming compensation for de facto expropriation.

12. By contracts concluded between 7 and 10 February 2003, the said co-owners transferred their claim partially to the applicant.

13. On 21 May 2004 the Tuzla Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded the applicant TRL 228,383,784,143 (approximately EUR 120,000) with an interest at the statutory rate.

14. On 19 April 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court.

15. On 28 March 2007 the administration paid the applicant TRY 421,766 ( approximately EUR 226,700) .

16. According to the document issued by the Enforcement Office on 15 December 2009, the administration still had an outstanding debt of TRY 19,766 ( approximately EUR 9,000).

COMPLAINTS

17. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the authorities ’ prolonged failure to fully comply with the binding and enforceable judgments in his favor and the insufficient default interest paid on the compensation amount at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey was very high.

THE LAW

A. As to the complaint regarding the national authorities ’ failure to enforcement of the domestic courts judgments

18. Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained about the national authorities ’ delay in paying the compensation awarded to him by the domestic courts. He also complained under the same Articles that the administration had not yet paid the full amount of awarded compensation yet.

19. The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to the Compensation Commission.

20. The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a 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 and others 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 new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning non-execution of judgments.

21. The Court notes that in its judgment in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77), it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of that type which had already been communicated to the Government.

22. Taking into account the Government ’ s objection with regard to the applicant ’ s failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the cases of Demiroğlu and O t hers , ( decision cited above, §§ 24-36) , and Turgut and Others v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013).

23. In view of the above, the Court concludes that this part of the application should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies.

B. Other complaints

24. Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained about the insufficient default interest which had been applied to the compensation awarded to him despite the high rate of inflation at the time.

25. In the light of the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with the Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 15 February 2018 .

Hasan Bakırcı Ledi Bianku              Deputy Registrar President

[1] . Equivalent of 93,827.93 TRY.

On 1 January 2005 the Turkish Lira ( TRY ) entered into circulation, replacing the former Turkish Lira (TRL). 1 TRY = TRL 1,000,000.