Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)280 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Karaman against Turkey

(Application No. 6489/03, judgments of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008,

and of 08/06/2010, final on 08/09/2010)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the domestic courts ’ refusal to compensate the applicants when the administrative authorities failed to use a portion of property donated by the applicants for its intended public-interest purpose (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the mea s ures taken in order to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- general measures preventing, similar violations;

Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in Appendix;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)280

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the case of

Karaman against Turkey

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the domestic courts ’ refusal to compensate the applicants when the administrative authorities failed to use a portion of property donated by the applicants for its intended public-interest purpose (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In 1997, the applicants donated a plot of their land to the authorities for the construction of a health-care facility. However they later sued the mayor ’ s office when they learned that a portion of it was sold to third parties. Based on the contract-law principle of “conditional donation”, they requested compensation. The Court of Cassation held that the matter should be analysed as a public-law issue akin to relinquishment in the context of expropriation law rather than a conditional donation as a matter of contract law. It accordingly held that once a property was donated to the authorities, its previous owners could no longer claim any right in relation to it.

The European Court held that the applicants had had a legitimate expectation that the authorities would put the entire property to its intended use, and that they would be refunded or compensated for any portion that was not so utilised. Without examining the domestic law provisions in the abstract, the European Court held that the manner in which domestic law was interpreted and applied in the dispute could not be reconciled with the requirements of the Convention.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

47 817 EUR

----

----

47 817 EUR

(.)

The applicants signed a protocol with the relevant municipality and waived their right to compensation

b) Individual measures

On 8/06/2010, the European Court rendered its judgment on the just satisfaction, and awarded the applicants a total amount of 47 817 EUR for pecuniary damages.

On 8/09/2010, the authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that the applicants had explicitly waived their right to compensation. The authorities submitted that the applicants had signed a protocol with the relevant municipality, according to which the municipality would donate the property in question to a charitable association ( Yoksullara Yardım Derneği ) . On 28/08/2010, the municipality transferred the ownership of the property to the Yoksullara Yardım Derneği . The applicants also wrote to the Committee of Ministers confirming that they had explicitly waived their right to compensation in accordance with this protocol. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The judgment of the European Court was sent out to the relevant authorities and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice http://www.e d b.adalet.gov.tr . The Turkish authorities considered that the problem revealed by this judgment was an isolated one which stemmed from the interpretation and the application of the domestic law by national courts, and that the publication and dissemination of the Court ’ s judgment would therefore be sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future. Therefore, no further general measures appear necessary.

III. Conclusions

The government considers that no individual measure is required apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies