SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 36287/06 Metin KILIÇ against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 February 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Paul Lemmens , President, Ksenija Turković , Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 2006,

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. Metin K ı l ı ç, is a Tu rkish national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. The Keçiören Municipality (Ankara) (“the administration”) expropriated the house of the applicant and paid 767,730,530 Turkish liras (TRL) as compensation.

4. On 17 October 2000 the applicant brought an action before the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance and asked for additional compensation.

5. On 4 December 2001 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance awarded TRL 9,752,289,220 (approximately 18,000 Euros (EUR)), with statutory interest running from 17 October 2000.

6. On 23 September 2002 and 23 December 2002, respectively, the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant ’ s appeal and rectification requests.

7. On 29 December 2002 the applicant applied to the Ankara Enforcement Office in order to enforce the court decision.

8. According to the information in the case file the applicant has not yet received the full amount.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

9. A description of the domestic law and practise with respect to the Compensation Commission mentioned below (paragraph 13-14) may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013); Demiroğlu v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013); and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014).

COMPLAINT

10. The applicant, without relying on a specific article, stated that the administration delayed the payment of the additional compensation at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey was very high. He further complained about the insufficient interest rate that had been applied in his case.

THE LAW

11. T he applicant complained about the financial loss he had suffered as a result of the substantial delay in the enforcement proceedings and the insufficiency of the interest rate that had been applied in his case.

12. The Government noted that pursuant to Law No. 6384 of 9 January 2013 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning length of proceedings and non-enforcement of judgments. They further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged loss of value of the amount of the expropriation compensation due to the effects of inflation and the length of the proceedings. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to the Compensation Commission.

13. The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a new 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 Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014), the Court declared applications 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 the depreciation of awards in expropriation cases.

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

15. However, 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 Turgut and Others (( dec. ), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013, §§ 47-59); Çakır and Others v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 51274/07, 25 June 2013, § 6) ; Yöyler and Others v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 10783/07, 16 December 2014, §§ 11-13) ; and Yıldız and Yanak (cited above, §§ 29-38).

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

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares inadmissible the application.

Done in English and notified in writing on 23 March 2017 .

Hasan Bakırcı Paul Lemmens              Deputy Registrar President