File 4 - Article 50

8 sub-files

Materials pertaining to the litigation surrounding the 'Protocol' of 18 October 1998 (A44/43/1/2/2/3/2) signed by four of the applicants in Akdivar and others with Turkey, and whether this protocol constituted a legal settlement. Many background documents and materials pertaining to the original judgment process were also placed in this file by Françoise Hampson for context purposes. In the original judgment of 16 September 1996, the Court stated that it was not ready for decision in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants to submit in writing, within three months, their observations on the matter and, in particular, notify the Court of any agreement they might reach.
Article 50 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides as follows: “If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” The applicants claimed, inter alia, compensation under this provision for the losses incurred as a result of the destruction of their houses by the security forces which forced them to abandon their village. The Government submitted that an agreement had been reached with the applicants on this question.
On 1 April 1998, the Court ruled by seventeen votes to one that the Protocol did not constitute a legally applicable settlement and thus the Court must consider the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. The Court also ruled by seventeen votes to one that the respondent State is to pay to the applicants, within three months, the following sums to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of settlement:
(a) in respect of pecuniary damage:
(i) 6,057 (six thousand and fifty-seven) pounds sterling and 85 (eighty-five) pence to Ahmet Akdivar,
(ii) 7,205 (seven thousand two hundred and five) pounds sterling and 99 (ninety-nine) pence to Ali Akdivar,
(iii) 32,578 (thirty-two thousand five hundred and seventy-eight) pounds sterling and 79 (seventy-nine) pence to Zülfükar Çiçek,
(iv) 16,173 (sixteen thousand one hundred and seventy-three) pounds sterling and 44 (forty-four) pence to Abdurrahman Akdivar,
(v) 14,533 (fourteen thousand five hundred and thirty-three) pounds sterling and 23 (twenty-three) pence to Abdurrahman Aktaş,
(vi) 12,539 (twelve thousand five hundred and thirty-nine) pounds sterling and 36 (thirty-six) pence to Mehmet Karabulut,
(vii) 25,974 (twenty-five thousand nine hundred and seventy-four) pounds sterling and 10 (ten) pence to Ahmet Çiçek;
(b) in respect of non-pecuniary damage the sum of 8,000 (eight thousand) pounds sterling each;
Turkey was to pay to the applicants, within three months, 8,140 (eight thousand one hundred and forty) pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable.
Full text of the judgment is available to view at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58152