SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application s no s . 4557/08, 4711/08, 4777/08 and 10454/08 by TOSUN and Others against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 13 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Dragoljub Popović , President, András Sajó , Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application s lodged on 15 January 2008 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant s , Mr Necati Tosun , Ms Nefise Kılıç, Ms Nazmiye Önol and Mr İdris Ay were Turkish national s who w ere born in 1930, 1933, 1926 and 1921, respectively, and live d in Bursa and Balıkesir . They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Demirkan , a lawyer practising in Bursa . The Turkish Government (“the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent.

The circumstances of the case s

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

In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized the applicants ’ plots of lands located in Bursa and Bal ı kesir without expropriation , for the construction of a highway. The applicants subsequently lodged separate civil actions in order to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their properties , which resulted in their favour .

At the time of the communication of the applications to the respondent Government on 13 May 2009, the administration had still not paid the applicants the amounts awarded by domestic court judgments , despite the lapse of approximately four years.

By a letter dated 24 June 2009 the applicants ’ representative informed the Court that the applicants had died on 5 July 2006, 27 May 1990, 6 March 2006 and 1 January 2006, respectively.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain ed that the failure of the domestic authorities to execute the domestic courts ’ judgments had amounted to a breach of their right to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.

The Court reiterates that it has to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it, and is therefore obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67 , ECHR 2006 ‑ III ). Thus, even though the Government raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione personae in respect of the instant case s , the Court nevertheless has to examine it of its own motion (see Kolarić- KiÅ¡ur v. Croatia (dec.), no. 17129/05, 17 September 2009).

In this connection, the Court reiterates that an application cannot be brought in the name of a deceased person, since a deceased person is unable, even through a representative, to lodge an application with the Court (see Yaşa v. Turkey , no. 22495/93, Commiss ion ’ s report of 8 April 1997, § 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI). As it is undisputed that the applicants had died long before their representative introduced the application s in their names , it follows that the case s ha ve no t been brought by person s who can be regarded as applicant s for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009). Therefore, the present application s are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be re jected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 (see, for example, Dupin v. Croatia (dec.), no. 36868/03, 7 July 2009 ; Kolarić-Kišur (dec.), cited above ).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the application s inadmissible.

             Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović Deputy Registrar President