Akkus v. Turkey (60/1996/679/869) 9 July 1997: depreciation through inflation of additional compensation for expropriation caused by authorities' delay in payment -- "entitlement to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions"
Turkey - depreciation through inflation of additional compensation for expropriation caused by authorities' delay in payment
I. Government's preliminary objections
A. Non-compliance with six-month time-limit
Complaint was concerned solely with national authorities' delay in paying additional compensation and damage sustained by applicant as a result - applicant could not have made complaint until some time had elapsed after final judgment of Court of Cassation.
Conclusion: objection dismissed (eight votes to one).
II. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Situation of which applicant complained concerned her "entitle[ment] to the peaceful enjoyment of [her] possessions" - Court had to examine terms and conditions on which compensation was payable under domestic legislation and manner in which they had been applied in applicant's case.
Additional compensation plus interest at rate of 30% per annum was paid to applicant seventeen months after Court of Cassation's judgment at a time when inflation rates in Turkey had reached 70% per annum.
That difference - due solely to delay on part of authorities - between value of applicant's compensation as finally determined by Court of Cassation and its value when actually paid had caused applicant to sustain separate loss in addition to loss deriving from expropriation of her land.
By deferring payment of compensation for seventeen months, national authorities had rendered the compensation inadequate.
Conclusion: violation (seven votes to two).
III. Article 50 of the Convention
A. Pecuniary damage
Applicant entitled to reimbursement of difference between amount actually paid and depreciation of sum due to her over a period of at least fourteen months.
B. Non pecuniary damage
C. Costs and expenses
Awarded on an equitable basis.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sums to applicant (seven votes to two).
| Return to Topic Menu | Return to Main Menu |