BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF
SAVERIADES v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 16160/90)
JUDGMENT
(Just satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
26 October 2010
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Saveriades v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Işıl
Karakaş,
judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 5 October 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 16160/90) against the Republic
of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the
Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(“the Convention”) by a Cypriot national, Mr
Christos Saveriades (“the applicant”), on 26 January
1990.
- In
a judgment delivered on 22 September 2009 (“the principal
judgment”), the Court dismissed various preliminary objections
raised by the Turkish Government and found continuing violations of
Article 8 of the Convention by reason of the complete denial of the
right of the applicant to respect for his home and of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by virtue of the fact that the
applicant was denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of his
properties as well as any compensation for the interference with his
property rights. Furthermore, it found that it was not necessary to
examine the applicant's complaints under Articles 1 and 14 of the
Convention (Saveriades v. Turkey, no. 16160/90, §§ 12,
22, 31 and 34, and points 1-4 of the operative provisions, 22
September 2009).
- Under
Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction
of 6,181,646 Cypriot pounds (CYP –
approximately 10,561,960 euros (EUR)) for the deprivation of his
properties concerning the period between January 1987, when the
respondent Government accepted the right of individual petition, and
31 December 2007. Two valuation reports, setting out the basis of the
applicant's loss, were appended to his observations.
Furthermore, the applicant claimed CYP 278,000 (approximately
EUR 474,990) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
approximately EUR 74,590 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
- Since
the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was
not ready for decision, the Court reserved it in whole and invited
the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months,
their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to
notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., §§
53 and 56, and point 5 of the operative provisions).
- On
4 March 2010 the Court invited the applicant and the Government to
submit any materials which they considered relevant to assessing the
1974 market value of the properties concerned by the principal
judgment. The applicant was moreover invited to submit written
evidence that the properties at stake were still registered in his
name or to indicate and substantiate any transfer of ownership which
might have taken place.
- The
applicant and the Government each filed observations on these
matters. On 27 May 2010 the applicant produced certificates of
ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties issued by the
Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus. It
transpires from these documents that on 19 April 2010 the properties
described in paragraphs 14 and 15 below were registered in the name
of “Christos Saveriadis”.
THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY ISSUE
- In
a letter of 22 April 2010 the Government requested the Court to
decide that it was not necessary to continue the examination of the
applicant's just satisfaction claims. They invoked the principles
affirmed by the Grand Chamber in Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey
([GC] (Dec.), nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03,
10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04, 1 March 2010) and argued
that the applicant should address his claims to the Immovable
Property Commission (the “IPC”) instituted by the “TRNC”
Law 67/2005. They reiterated their position on the issue of
exhaustion of domestic remedies in the present case and in other
similar cases on 8 and 22 June 2010.
- The
Court first observes that the Government's submissions were
unsolicited; they were received by the Registry long after the
expiration of the time-limit for filing comments on just satisfaction
and almost two months after the delivery of the Grand Chamber's
decision in Demopoulos. It could therefore be held that the
Government are estopped from raising the matter at this stage of the
proceedings.
- In
any event, the Court cannot but reiterate its case-law according to
which objections based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised
after an application has been declared admissible cannot be taken
into account at the merits stage (see Demades v. Turkey (merits),
no. 16219/90, § 20, 31 July 2003, and Alexandrou
v. Turkey (merits), no. 16162/90, § 21, 20 January
2009) or at a later stage. This approach has not been modified by the
Grand Chamber, as the cases of Demopoulos and Others had not
been declared admissible when Law 67/2005 entered into force and when
Turkey objected that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
- Furthermore,
the Court considers that its previous finding in the present case
that the applicant was not required to exhaust the remedy introduced
by Law 67/2005 constitutes res judicata. It recalls that after
the compensation mechanism before the IPC was introduced, the
Government raised an objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies. This objection was rejected in the principal judgment (see
paragraph 12 of the principal judgment and point 1 of its operative
provisions). The Government also unsuccessfully requested the
referral of the case to the Grand Chamber.
- It
follows that the Government's request to stay the examination of the
applicant's claims for just satisfaction should be rejected. The
Court will therefore continue to examine the case under Article 41 of
the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
1. The parties' submissions
(a) The applicant
- In
his just satisfaction claims of 3 December 2002, the applicant
requested CYP 3,960,739 (approximately EUR 6,767,318) for the
pecuniary damage suffered with respect to the two properties
concerned by the principal judgment: a four-bedroom apartment and a
school in Famagusta. He relied on an expert's report assessing the
value of his loss which included the loss of annual rents collected
or expected to be collected from the use of his school and from
renting out his apartment, plus interest from the date on which such
rents were due until the day of payment.
- The
applicant's apartment was located at no. 128 of the
commercial and touristic central street named Kennedy Avenue; it was
indicated by no. 703 on a building erected upon a building site
with plot no. 937 of block C and sheet/plan 33/21.2.3. It was
registered in the name of the applicant under registration no. 1057
(see paragraph 8 of the principal judgment). The rents claimed
were for the period dating back to January 1987, when the respondent
Government accepted the right of individual petition, until
31 December 2002. The applicant did not claim compensation for
any purported expropriation since he was still the legal owner of the
property. He underlined that his family bought the apartment in
Kennedy Avenue from a certain Georghios Michael Nicolaides in 1968
for CYP 6,300 (approximately EUR 10,764), as evidenced by the
relevant sale agreement. Calculating a 12% annual increase, in 1987
this property was worth CYP 54,206 (approximately EUR 92,616)
and an annual rent of CYP 3,527 (approximately EUR 6,026) could
have been obtained from it. The total rent expected to be collected
in the period 1987-2002 was CYP 70,779 (approximately EUR
120,932).
- The
applicant further owned land in Famagusta on which was
located an Intercommunal Secondary Grammar school, known as the
“Centre of Higher Studies”. This land covered a total
area of 6,299 m², on plot no. 900 of block D and sheet/plan
24/59W2. It was registered in the name of the applicant under
registration no. D-4840. On this land the applicant had erected a
three-storey building, which had a total area of 2,020 m²,
comprising a basement, ground floor and two vertical floors above it.
The applicant submitted that he was the owner and headmaster of the
above-mentioned school, the premises of which are now part of the
“Eastern Mediterranean University” (see paragraph 9 of
the principal judgment). As far as the applicant's school was
concerned, the valuation report took into account the following
damages:
(a) the trade disturbance for not being allowed to conduct
the established course of business and for being forced to relocate
and restart the business in Nicosia in 1992 (amounting to CYP
2,155,519); in this respect, the expert noted that the profits which
could have been expected from running the school were CYP 118,818
(approximately EUR 203,012) in 1987 and CYP 170,732
(approximately EUR 291,712) in 1992, while the profits obtained by
the applicant from the business he restarted in Nicosia were, in
1992, only CYP 102,236 (approximately EUR 174,680);
(b) the rents expected to be collected from renting or
leasing the school until 1991 (the annual rent in 1987 being
estimated at CYP 23,054 – approximately EUR 39,390);
(c) the rent paid by the applicant from 1992 onwards for
occupying the premises in Nicosia where he had restarted his business
(amounting to CYP 220,757);
(d) the statutory interest on the above sums.
- The
calculations made in the valuation report were based on the Consumer
Price and Rent and Housing Indices for the years 1960-2002 (issued by
the Department of Statistics and Research of the Government of
Cyprus), on the financial picture of Famagusta, on the expected
growth of the applicant's business, on the location of the premises
and on their expected increase in value.
- The
expert presumed that the price of the applicant's apartment would
have risen constantly by 12 % each year for the period from 1968
to 1987. He then aggregated the rents that could have been
collected from 22 January 1987 until 31 December 2002,
calculated as 6.25 % of the estimated market value of the
property for each of the years in question, plus interest from the
date on which such rent was due until the date of payment.
- On
25 January 2008, following a request from the Court for an update on
developments of the case, the applicant submitted updated claims for
just satisfaction, which were meant to cover the loss of use of the
properties from 1 January 1987 to 31 December 2007. He produced a
revised valuation report, which, on the basis of the criteria adopted
in the previous report, concluded that the whole sum due for the loss
of use was CYP 4,272,291, plus CYP 1,909,355 for interest. The
total sum claimed under this head was thus CYP 6,181,646
(approximately EUR 10,561,960).
- On
27 May 2010 the applicant produced another revised valuation report,
which was meant to cover the loss of use for the period between
1 January 1987 and 30 June 2010. The expert appointed by the
applicant considered that the whole sum due to his client for
pecuniary damage was EUR 11,739,173.
- On
22 June 2010 the applicant produced a “report on 1974 property
prices ... in Turkish occupied northern Cyprus”, prepared by
“EMS Economic Management Ltd.”, to which were annexed 43
copies of files of the Bank of Cyprus relating to loans, mortgages
and valuations undertaken in the period 1971-1974 with respect to
acquisition of properties in Famagusta. Their content was summarised
in a synoptic table. It appears from these documents that Famagusta
could be divided in areas with different prices for real estate. In
particular, the average 1974 price of a square metre of constructible
land was: (a) CYP 102 for the areas on the beach or close to it, plus
the new town centre; (b) CYP 44 in Ayios Nicolaos and Varoshia;
(c) CYP 18 in Stavros Famagusta; (d) CYP 16 to 25 in Kato Varosi e
Ayios Memnon; (e) CYP 41 in Ayia Zoni; (f) CYP 8 in Ayios
Loucas. The study concluded that in view of its location on the beach
front, the 1974 value of the applicant's apartment was CYP 12,435
(approximately EUR 21,246). The applicant further submitted a
research from the archives of a property development company, showing
the sales of twenty apartments in the period 1970-1974. Four
apartments were sold in 1974 for prices ranging from CYP 16,200 (two
bedrooms) to CYP 19,000 (three bedrooms). According to this research,
the compound annual appreciation of the apartments since the Turkish
invasion had been 9.50% per year.
- In
his just satisfaction claims of 3 December 2002, the applicant
further claimed CYP 228,000 (approximately EUR 389,560) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage. In particular, he first claimed CYP
38,000 (approximately EUR 64,926) for the anguish and
frustration he suffered on account of the continuing violation of his
property rights. He stated that this sum had been calculated on the
basis of the sum awarded by the Court in the Loizidou case
((just satisfaction), 28 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1998-IV), taking into account, however, that the period
of time for which the damage was claimed in the instant case was
longer. The applicant also claimed CYP 114,000 (approximately
EUR 194,780) for the distress and suffering he had been
subjected to due to the denial of his right to respect for his home
and CYP 76,000 (approximately EUR 129,853) for the
violation of his rights under Article 14 of the Convention.
- In
his updated claims for just satisfaction of 25 January 2008, the
applicant requested the additional sum of EUR 50,000 for
non-pecuniary damage.
(b) The Government
- In
reply to the applicant's just satisfaction claims of 3 December 2002,
the Government challenged the conclusions reached by the Court in the
Loizidou case ((just satisfaction), cited above). They
considered that in cases such as the present one, no award should be
made by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention. They underlined
that the applicant's inability to have access to his properties
depended on the political situation of the island and, in particular,
on the existence of the UN recognised cease-fire lines. If
Greek-Cypriots were allowed to go to the north and claim their
properties, chaos would explode on the island; furthermore, any award
made by the Court would undermine the negotiations between the two
parties.
24. The
Government filed comments on the applicant's updated claims for just
satisfaction on 30 June 2008, 15 October 2008 and 22 June 2010. They
pointed out that the present application was part of a cluster of
similar cases raising a number of problematic issues and
submitted that as an annual increase of the value of the properties
had been applied, it would be unfair to add compound interest for
delayed payment. Moreover, Turkey had recognised the jurisdiction of
the Court on 21 January 1990, and not in January 1987. In any event,
the alleged 1974 market value of the properties was exorbitant,
highly excessive and speculative; it was not based on any real data
with which to make a comparison and made insufficient allowance for
the volatility of the property market and its susceptibility to
influences both domestic and international. The reports submitted by
the applicant had instead proceeded on the assumption that the
property market would have continued to flourish with sustained
growth during the whole period under consideration.
- The
Government produced a valuation report prepared by the
Turkish-Cypriot authorities, which they considered to be based on a
“realistic assessment of the 1974 market values, having regard
to the relevant land records and comparative sales in the areas where
the properties [were] situated”. This report contained two
proposals, assessing, respectively, the sum due for the loss of use
of the properties and their present value. The second proposal was
made in order to give the applicant the option to sell the properties
to the State, thereby relinquishing title to and claims in respect of
them.
- The
report prepared by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities specified that the
properties claimed by the applicant, currently possessed by refugees
and by the Ministry of Education, could not form the object of
restitution but could give entitlement to financial compensation, to
be calculated on the basis of the loss of income (by applying a 5%
rent on the 1974 market values) and increase in value of the property
between 1974 and the date of payment. Had the applicant applied to
the IPC, the latter would have offered CYP 287,279.03 (approximately
EUR 490,844) to compensate the loss of use and CYP 305,991.12
(approximately EUR 522,816) for the value of the properties.
According to an expert appointed by the authorities of the “TRNC”,
the 1974 open-market value of the apartment claimed by the applicant
was CYP 5,000 (approximately EUR 8,543), while the property
described in paragraph 15 above was worth CYP 45,000 (approximately
EUR 76,887). Upon fulfilment of certain conditions, the IPC could
also have offered the applicant exchange of his properties with
Turkish-Cypriot properties located in the south of the island.
- In
their comments of 22 June 2010, the Government recalled that in the
case of Demopoulos and Others (cited above) the Grand Chamber
had found that the IPC was an adequate domestic remedy for those
claiming a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Notwithstanding
the adoption of a judgment on the merits, it would still be open to
the applicant to apply to the IPC, which would calculate the current
value and the 1974 value of the properties “in a credential way
based on actual data”. On 27 May 2010 the IPC had sent a letter
to the applicant's representative, inviting his client to introduce
an application before it.
- The
Government recalled that under Law No. 67/2005, the following means
of redress were available: a) restitution; b) compensation;
c) exchange. The relevant provisions of the law at issue are
described in Demopoulos and Others (cited above, §§
35-37).
- The
Government further noted that in making its assessment as regarded
compensation for the loss of use, the IPC had collected data from the
Department of Lands and Surveys on the 1973-1974 purchase prices for
comparable properties. It had also examined the development of
interest rates of the Cyprus Central Bank. The loss of income was
then calculated by assuming that the obtainable rent would have been
5% of the value of the properties; this last value had been modified
every year on the basis of the land market value index. Cyprus
Central Bank interest rates had been applied on the sums due since
1974.
- Being
in possession of the land registers, the
Turkish-Cypriot
authorities were in a better position than the applicants and the
Greek-Cypriot authorities to assess the market values of the
properties in a realistic and reliable manner. The applicants had put
forward exaggerated claims and had tended to inflate the 1974 values
of their possessions. The Government therefore requested the
Court to rule on compensation on the basis of the calculations made
by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities, which were “credential and
objective in every aspect”.
- The
report prepared by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities confirmed that it
would not be possible to envisage restitution of the properties
described in paragraphs 14 and 15 above. Had the applicant
applied to the IPC, the latter would have increased its offer up to
CYP 328,571.41 (approximately EUR 561,397) to compensate the
loss of use and up to CYP 334,949.83 (approximately EUR 572,295)
for the value of the properties. The expert appointed by the
authorities of the “TRNC” also confirmed the 1974
open-market values of the applicant's properties as indicated in
paragraph 26 above.
- Finally,
the Government considered that the amount claimed in respect of
non-pecuniary damage was excessive and unrealistic; given the
existence of an effective domestic remedy, the Court should keep the
award for such damage to a minimum.
2. The Court's assessment
- The
Court recalls that it has concluded that there had been a continuing
violation of the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article 8 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by reason of the
complete denial of the rights of the applicant with respect to his
home and the peaceful enjoyment of his properties in Famagusta (see
paragraphs 31 and 22 of the principal judgment). Furthermore, its
finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was based on
the fact that, as a consequence of being continuously denied access
to his land and real estate since 1974, the applicant had effectively
lost all access and control as well as all possibilities to use and
enjoy his properties (see paragraph 20 of the principal judgment). He
is therefore entitled to a measure of compensation in respect of
losses directly related to this violation of his rights as from the
date of deposit of Turkey's declaration recognising the right of
individual petition under former Article 25 of the Convention,
namely 22 January 1987, until the present time (see Cankoçak
v. Turkey, nos. 25182/94 and 26956/95, § 26, 20
February 2001, and Demades v. Turkey (just satisfaction),
no. 16219/90, § 21, 22 April 2008).
- In
connection with this, the Court observes that the affirmations of
ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties produced by the
applicant (see paragraph 6 above) show that on 19 April 2010 he was
still the owner of the properties described in paragraphs 14 and 15
above.
- In
the opinion of the Court, the valuations furnished by the applicant
involve a significant degree of speculation and make insufficient
allowance for the volatility of the property market and its
susceptibility to influences both domestic and international (see
Loizidou (just satisfaction), cited above, § 31). An even
higher degree of speculation is involved in the calculations
concerning the profits which the applicant could have earned from
running his school. Accordingly, in assessing the pecuniary damage
sustained by the applicant, the Court has, as far as appropriate,
considered the estimates provided by him (see Xenides-Arestis v.
Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 46347/99, § 41,
7 December 2006). In general it considers as reasonable the
approach to assessing the loss suffered by the applicant with
reference to the annual ground rent, calculated as a percentage of
the market value of the properties, that could have been earned
during the relevant period (Loizidou (just satisfaction),
cited above, § 33, and Demades (just satisfaction),
cited above, § 23). Furthermore, the Court has taken into
account the uncertainties, inherent in any attempt to quantify the
real losses incurred by the applicant (see Loizidou v. Turkey
(preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 102, Series A
no. 310, and (merits) 18 December 1996, § 32,
Reports 1996-VI).
- The
Court notes that in response to its request to submit material
relevant to assessing the 1974 market value of the applicant's
properties, the Government have relied on the accuracy of the IPC's
calculations (see paragraphs 25 and 29-30 above), while the applicant
has produced two detailed studies on the prices in northern
Cyprus at the relevant time (see paragraph 20 above).
- In
any event, at least for one of the properties concerned by the
principal judgment (namely, the apartment in Famagusta described in
paragraph 14 above) objective data can be retained: the flat at issue
was bought in 1968, which is six years before the Turkish invasion,
for approximately EUR 10,764 (see paragraph 14 above). It follows
that the estimate provided by the “TRNC” authorities
(approximately EUR 8,543 – see paragraph 26 above) seems
lower than the 1974 market price.
- The
Court further observes that the applicant submitted an additional
claim in the form of annual compound interest in respect of the
losses on account of the delay in the payment of the sums due. While
the Court considers that a certain amount of compensation in the form
of statutory interest should be awarded to the applicant, it finds
that the rates applied by him are on the high side (see, mutatis
mutandis, Demades (just satisfaction), cited above, §
24).
- Finally,
the Court is of the opinion that an award should be made in respect
of the anguish and feelings of helplessness and frustration which the
applicant must have experienced over the years in not being able to
use his properties as he saw fit and to enjoy his home (see Demades
(just satisfaction), cited above, § 29, and
Xenides-Arestis (just satisfaction), cited above, § 47).
- Having
regard to the above considerations, the Court is of the opinion that
the sums claimed by the applicant in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage (respectively EUR 11,739,173 and EUR
439,560 – see paragraphs 19 and 21-22 above) are manifestly
excessive. At the same time, the amount which the “TRNC”
authorities could have offered the applicant in respect of loss of
use (approximately EUR 561,397 – see paragraph 31 above)
does not seem to take into due account the nature of the properties
owned by the applicant and described in paragraphs 14 and 15 above.
They consisted in an apartment in Famagusta and in a plot of land of
a total area of 6,299 square metres, on which the applicant had
erected a three-storey building, which had a total area of
2,020 square metres. An established course of business was being
carried on in these premises before the Turkish invasion. Even if it
is difficult to speculate on the profits which could have been earned
from the business at issue (see paragraph 35 above), it is reasonable
to assume that the impossibility to use the property has created a
significant financial disturbance and that the finding of similar
premises in the unoccupied parts of Cyprus has entailed a relatively
high cost for the applicant. Making its assessment on an equitable
basis, the Court decides to award the applicant EUR 1,100,000 in
respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- In
his just satisfaction claims of 3 December 2002, relying on bills
from his representatives, the applicant sought CYP 5,932.14
(approximately EUR 10,135) plus V.A.T. (to be calculated at a rate of
15%) for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This sum
included CYP 3,250 (approximately EUR 5,552) for the costs of the
expert report assessing the value of his properties. On 14 July 2003,
the applicant submitted additional bills of costs from his lawyers,
amounting to a total of CYP 10,350 (approximately EUR 17,684) plus
V.A.T. On 15 January 2004, he claimed additional expenses amounting
to CYP 2,645 (approximately EUR 4,519). In his updated claims for
just satisfaction of 25 January 2008, the applicant submitted
additional estimated bills of costs amounting to EUR 39,297.83
and EUR 2,955.5. Finally, on 27 May 2010 the applicant submitted
that his further legal fees and expert report's costs amounted to EUR
2,955.5 and EUR 26,372.276 respectively.
- The
Government did not comment on this point.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to
quantum (see, for
example, Iatridis v. Greece (just
satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-XI).
- The
Court notes that the case involved perusing a certain amount
of factual and documentary evidence and required a fair degree of
research and preparation. In particular, the
costs associated with producing valuation reports in view of the
continuing nature of the violations at stake were essential to enable
the Court to reach its decision regarding the issue of just
satisfaction (see Demades (just satisfaction), cited
above, § 34).
- Although
the Court does not doubt that the fees claimed were actually
incurred, it considers the amount claimed for the costs and expenses
relating to the proceedings before it excessive and decides to award
a total sum of EUR 8,000.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Dismisses the Government's request to
stay the examination of the applicant's claims for just satisfaction;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts:
(i) EUR
1,100,000 (one million one hundred thousand euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR
8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to
the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 October 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
