003-68372-68840

WyrokETPCz2001-07-06

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy długotrwałe opóźnienia w wypłacie odszkodowania za wywłaszczone mienie, bez odpowiedniej waloryzacji uwzględniającej inflację, naruszyły prawo do poszanowania mienia z art. 1 Protokołu nr 1 Konwencji?

Ratio decidendi

Trybunał uznał, że długotrwałe opóźnienia w wypłacie odszkodowania za wywłaszczone mienie, w połączeniu z brakiem odpowiedniej waloryzacji uwzględniającej inflację, stanowiły nieproporcjonalne obciążenie dla skarżących. Skarżący nie otrzymali odszkodowania odzwierciedlającego rzeczywistą wartość ich nieruchomości w momencie wypłaty, co naruszyło ich prawo do poszanowania mienia chronione przez art. 1 Protokołu nr 1 Konwencji.

Stan faktyczny

Skarżący w 20 sprawach wnieśli skargi dotyczące opóźnień w wypłacie odszkodowania za wywłaszczone nieruchomości w Turcji. Twierdzili, że otrzymane odszkodowanie nie odzwierciedlało rzeczywistego wzrostu inflacji w okresie między ustaleniem kwoty a datą wypłaty, co doprowadziło do utraty wartości ich mienia.

Rozstrzygnięcie

Trybunał stwierdza jednogłośnie naruszenie art. 1 Protokołu nr 1 Konwencji. Trybunał stwierdza, że nie jest konieczne rozpatrywanie skarg skarżących na podstawie art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji. Trybunał zasądza zadośćuczynienie za szkodę majątkową i niemajątkową oraz koszty i wydatki.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 497 3.7.2001 Press release issued by the Registrar CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France and Turkey The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 Chamber judgments, none of which are final[1]: SECTION 1 Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 In the following 20 Turkish judgments, the applicants complained in relation to delays in the payment of compensation due to them following the expropriation of their property. They alleged that the compensation they received did not reflect the real increase in inflation during the period between the date the amount was fixed and the date of payment. In each case (the judgments are available only in French) the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 (determination of civil rights within a reasonable time). The Court awarded each applicant the following amounts in American dollars (USD) for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, together with a total of USD 300 in each case for costs and expenses: Pecuniary damage non-pecuniary damage (1) Halim Akça v. Turkey (application no. 19640/92) USD 2,629 USD 1,000 (2) Mehmet Akçay v. Turkey (no. 19641/92) USD 25,030 USD 1,000 (3) Ahmet Akkaya v. Turkey (no. 19642/92) USD 6,809 USD 1,000 (4) İbrahim Akkaya v. Turkey (no. 19643/92) USD 6,432 USD 1,000 (5) Mustafa Akkaya v. Turkey (no. 19644/92) USD 19,682 USD 1,000 (6) Hüseyin Balcı v. Turkey (no. 19645/92) USD 1,953 USD 1,000 (7) Macit Balcı v. Turkey (no. 19646/92) USD 1,953 USD 1,000 (8) Bilge Baltekin v. Turkey (no. 19647/92) USD 3,452 USD 1,000 (9) Halil Başar v. Turkey (no. 19648/92) USD 11,874 USD 1,000 (10) Talip Başar v. Turkey (no. 19649/92) USD 16,420 USD 1,000 (11) Ahmet Bilgin v. Turkey (no. 19650/92) USD 9,193 (12) Mahmut Bilgin v. Turkey (no. 19651/92) USD 9,193 (13) Mehmet Bilgin v. Turkey (no.2) (no. 19652/92) USD 9,193 (14) Yusuf Bilgiç v. Turkey (no. 19653/92) USD 50,736 USD 1,000 (15) Fethiye Dinç v. Turkey (no. 19654/92) USD 19,881 USD 1,000 (16) Ünzile Dokel v. Turkey (no. 19655/92) USD 7,415 USD 1,000 (17) Saadettin Eğrikale v. Turkey (no. 19656/92) USD 9,362 USD 1,000 (18) Naşide Erol v. Turkey (no.2) (no. 19657/92) USD 4,787 (19) Recep Erol v. Turkey (no. 19658/92) USD 46,200 USD 1,000 (20) Sefer Erol v. Turkey (no. 19659/92) USD 19,881 USD 1,000 SECTION 3 (21) Romo v. France (no. 40402/98) Violation Article 6 § 1 José Romo, a French national complained about the length of administrative proceedings (which lasted eight years, seven months and four days for two levels of jurisdiction) concerning planning permission for a complex of flats and businesses on land opposite his house. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 40,000 French francs for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.) *** The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int). Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91 The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.