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 SOLOMONIDES v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 16161/90)
JUDGMENT
(Just
satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
27
July 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 Solomonides v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Işıl
Karakaş, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 July 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 16161/90) 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 Antonakis Solomonides
(“the applicant”), on 26 January 1990.
- In
a judgment delivered on 20 January 2009 (“the principal
judgment”), the Court held that the administrator of the
applicant's estate (Mrs Rodothea Karaviotou) had standing to continue
the present proceedings in his stead, dismissed various preliminary
objections raised by the Turkish Government and found a continuing
violation 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 (Solomonides v. Turkey,
no. 16161/90, §§ 13, 26, 39, 43 and 45 and points 1-4
of the operative provisions, 20 January 2009).
- Under
Article 41 of the Convention the administrator of the applicant's
estate sought just satisfaction of 3,913,615 Cypriot pounds (CYP –
approximately 6,686,802 euros (EUR)) for the deprivation of the
applicant's properties concerning the period between January 1987,
when the respondent Government accepted the right of individual
petition, and September 1999. A valuation report, setting out the
basis of the applicant's loss, was appended to her observations.
Moreover, in January 2008 she stated that the claim for pecuniary
losses needed to be updated according to the increase of the market
value of land in Cyprus (between 10 and 15% per annum). Furthermore,
the administrator of the applicant's estate claimed CYP 40,000
(approximately EUR 68,344) in respect of non-pecuniary damage
and CYP 6,090.93 (approximately EUR 10,406) 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., §§
57 and 60, and point 5 of the operative provisions).
- On
13 July 2009 the Court invited the administrator of the applicant's
estate 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
administrator of the applicant's estate filed comments on this
matter; the Government requested the Court to discontinue the
examination of the application by reason that the administrator of
the applicant's estate had applied to the Immovable Property
Commission (the “IPC”) instituted by the authorities of
the “TRNC” (see paragraphs 9-13 below).
- On
4 September 2009, the administrator of the applicant's estate
was invited to submit written evidence that the properties at stake
were still registered in the name of the applicant's heirs or to
indicate and substantiate any transfer of ownership which might have
taken place.
- On
28 September 2009 the administrator of the applicant's estate
produced a “search certificate of immovable property”
issued in 2009 by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic
of Cyprus, stating that “in accordance with our records”
41 out of the 44 plots of lands referred to in the application were
“registered in the name [of] Antonakis Solomonides of Nicosia
District – Cyprus”. For the 3 remaining plots of land the
administrator of the applicant's estate produced “affirmations
of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable property” issued on
16 September 2009 in favour of “Solomonides Christou Antonakis”
by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus.
- On
10 December 2009 the Government produced a copy of an application
made on 16 March 2009 by Mrs Rodothea Karaviotou to the IPC. It was
stated that in her quality of administrator of the estate of late
Antonakis Solomonides, Mrs Karaviotou was “the same ... as the
applicant to the European Court of Human Rights in the application
no. 16161/90” and that she had filed the application “for
the settlement of the properties registered in the name of late
Antonakis Solomonides and/or owned in shares by him and which are
still in [the] “TRNC”)”. She recalled the claims
for just satisfaction presented to the Court and declared that she
was ready to “discuss any serious offer concerning the above
case”. Finally, Mrs Karaviotou undertook the engagement to
preserve the confidentiality of the negotiations before the IPC.
- On
23 March 2009 Mrs Karaviotou's application was communicated to the
“TRNC” Attorney-General, who submitted his observations
on 24 July 2009. These observations were translated into English
and notified to Mrs Karaviotou. However, the latter refused service
of this document and of the notice for directions. She was informed
by telephone that the hearing for directions would take place on 15
September 2009. On that date, the officer appearing on behalf of the
“TRNC” Attorney-general requested Mrs Karaviotou to
produce a search certificate in respect of the properties referred to
in the application and which were located at the Mia Milea area of
Nicosia as well as documents showing that the mortgage debts raised
on the applicant's properties had been paid off. Mrs Karaviotou
failed to comply with this request.
- In
December 2009 Mrs Rodothea Karaviotou produced before the Court the
following declaration, which she had addressed to the IPC:
“I hereby would like to inform you that I, Mrs
Rodothea Karaviotou, in my capacity as administrator of the estate of
the late Antonakis Chr. Solomonides, wish to withdraw the application
made to the Immovable Property Commission on behalf of the deceased.
Furthermore, I would like to express the fervent wish of
Mr Solomonides' heirs that the procedure of their father's
application for damages to the ECHR [shall] not be discontinued, in
any case, as a result of a possible misunderstanding on my part and
through misleading information I received, regarding the said
application.”
- By
a decision (no. 131) of 11 December 2009, the IPC decided to dismiss
Mrs Karaviotou's application.
- In
a fax of 1 February 2010 the applicant's lawyer stated that
Mrs Karaviotou had not consulted him or his client's heirs (the
two daughters of Mr Solomonides) as to the steps she had taken after
the delivery of the Court's principal judgment. Misinterpreting the
Court's invitation to “notify ... any agreement that [the
parties] may reach”, Mrs Karaviotou had been under the
impression that she had to apply to the IPC in order to reach a
settlement on the issue of compensation. She subsequently realised
that she had made a mistake and withdrew her application to the IPC.
- On
25 May 2010, after the expiry of the relevant time-limit, the
Government submitted comments on the issue of just satisfaction and
the IPC's estimates of the applicant's losses. Having regard to the
exceptional circumstances of the present case, in which the
administrator of the applicant's estate had first submitted and then
withdrew a claim for compensation before the IPC, on 1 June 2010 the
Court decided to admit these submissions to the file and to transmit
a copy of them to the applicant's representative for information.
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
administrator of the applicant's estate'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 administrator of the
applicant's estate should address her claims to the IPC instituted by
the “TRNC” Law 67/2005. They reiterated their position on
the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies in this and other
relevant cases in a letter of 8 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 administrator of the applicant's estate 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 25 of the principal judgment
and point 2 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
administrator of the applicant's estate'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
her just satisfaction claims of September 1999, the administrator of
the applicant's estate requested CYP 3,913,615 (approximately
EUR 6,686,802) for pecuniary damage. She relied on an expert's
report assessing the value of the applicant's losses which included
the loss of annual rent collected or expected to be collected from
renting out the plots of land concerned by the principal judgment,
plus interest from the date on which such rents were due until the
day of payment. The rent claimed was for the period dating back to
January 1987, when the respondent Government accepted the right of
individual petition, until September 1999. The administrator of the
applicant's estate did not claim compensation for any purported
expropriation since the deceased was still the legal owner of the
properties. The evaluation report contained a description of the
Districts of Nicosia, Famagusta and Kyrenia, in which the applicant's
plots were situated.
- The
valuation report referred to 44 plots of land. Its starting point was
the annual rental value of each property in 1974, calculated on the
basis of a percentage (between 5 and 7%) of the market value of the
plots or assessed by comparing the rental value of similar lands at
the relevant time. This sum was subsequently adjusted upwards
according to an average annual
rental increase of 12% for the plots with residential use and of 7%
for agricultural lands. Compound interest for delayed payment was
applied at a rate of 8% per annum, the total sum due for interest
being CYP 1,245,652 (approximately EUR 2,128,321).
- According
to the expert, the total 1974 market value of the 44 plots of land
owned by the applicant was CYP 350,610 (approximately EUR 599,052),
while the total rental value was CYP 22,127.87 (approximately EUR
37,807).
- In
a letter of 28 January 2008 the administrator of the applicant's
estate observed that a long lapse of time had passed since she had
presented her claims for just satisfaction and that the claim for
pecuniary losses needed to be updated according to the increase of
the market value of land in Cyprus (between 10 and 15% per annum).
- On
6 October 2009 the administrator of the applicant's estate produced a
revised valuation report which, on the basis of the criteria adopted
in the previous report, concluded that the sum due for the loss of
use and for statutory interest for the period from 1 January 2000
until 31 December 2009 was EUR 16,286,439. The whole sum claimed
under the head of pecuniary damage was thus EUR 22,913,073.
- The
expert appointed by the administrator of the applicant's estate
declared that the “valuation [was] based on comparable plots
where available in the occupied part of Cyprus and comparable areas
in the unoccupied parts of Cyprus” and that according to his
experience the “1974 prices used [were] fair, reasonable and
accurate ... beyond dispute”.
- The
administrator of the applicant's estate also submitted a statement
made on 5 October 2009 by Mrs Efi Savvides, a District Land
Officer in Nicosia, which reads as follows:
“I ... hereby certify that for the preparation of
the original valuation reports of the application [no.] 16161/1990,
Solomonides v. Turkey ... the Department of Lands and Surveys has
collaborated with the private practice valuers ... by giving any
assistance required and providing all the necessary information, data
and plans to the said valuers ...
The valuation method and approach as well as the market
values and rents derived are considered fair and reasonable and are
consistent with the available comparable sales and existing
conditions, in the economy and the property market in Cyprus as at
July – August 1974.”
- In
her just satisfaction claims of September 1999, the administrator of
the applicant's estate further claimed CYP 40,000 (approximately
EUR 68,344) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. She stated that
this sum had been calculated on the basis of the sum awarded by the
Court in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey ((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 and that there had
also been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention.
- On
6 October 2009 the administrator of the applicant's estate increased
her claim for non-pecuniary damage up to EUR 70,000.
(b) The Government
- In
their observations of 6 October 2009, the Government noted that the
administrator of the applicant's estate had applied to the IPC and
that the examination of her claim was in process at the domestic
level. As a consequence, the examination of the case before the Court
should be discontinued (see paragraph 6 above).
- Had
Mrs Karaviotou's application not been withdrawn, a hearing would have
been held on the matters of compensation and/or restitution. Mrs
Karaviotou could have also lodged an appeal against the IPC's
decision before the “TRNC” High Administrative Court.
Moreover, nothing in “TRNC” law prevented Mrs Karaviotou
from reintroducing her application to the IPC. The latter was
functioning effectively and expeditiously. On 21 January 2010 it
had received 444 applications, 91 of which had been concluded. The
total compensation paid by the “TRNC” since the
establishment of the IPC amounted to 38,640,600 British Pounds.
- In
the Government's opinion, Mrs Karaviotou had withdrawn her
application to the IPC for reasons unrelated to the functioning of
the compensation system, namely because of the pressure which had
been exerted on her by the Greek-Cypriot authorities.
- The
Government noted that, as it could not be excluded that the
properties at issue had been transferred within the legal system of
Southern Cyprus, applicants should be required to provide search
certificates issued by the Greek-Cypriot Department of Lands and
Surveys. Failure to substantiate title to the properties at the
material time and at the time of the Court's judgment should be
considered as a failure to cooperate with the Court. No just
satisfaction should be awarded in respect to unsubstantiated or
dubious claims.
- In
their comments of 25 May 2010 the Government observed that the
applicant's behaviour had caused “considerable confusion and
uncertainty as to the properties in respect of which Mr. Solomonides
was ... making his claims” and that the claims for just
satisfaction concerned only 44 plots of land. They
further observed that notwithstanding the withdrawal of the
application to the IPC, the Turkish-Cypriot authorities had been able
to estimate the applicant's losses. Even if in respect of some
properties no record had been found in the registers of the
Department of Lands and Surveys available in the “TRNC”,
it had been assumed that the applicant's titles were genuine.
- The
Government produced a valuation report prepared by the
Turkish-Cypriot authorities, which they considered to be based on a
fair assessment of the applicant's losses and of the 1974 market
values, having regard to 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 administrator of the applicant's estate 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 it
would be possible to envisage, either immediately or after the
resolution of the Cyprus problem, restitution of nine plots of land.
The other immovable properties referred to in the application were
possessed by third parties; they 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
properties between 1974 and the date of payment. Had the Mrs
Karaviotou continued the procedure before the IPC, the latter would
have offered EUR 1,364,534 to compensate the loss of use and
EUR 2,182,568 for the value of the properties. According to an
expert appointed by the authorities of the “TRNC”, the
overall 1974 open-market value of the applicant's plots of land was
CYP 120,921.75 (approximately EUR 206,606.90). Upon fulfilment
of certain conditions, the IPC could also have offered the
applicant's heirs exchange of their properties with Turkish-Cypriot
properties located in the south of the island.
- In
the Government's opinion, Mrs Karavioutou's claims for pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage were highly exorbitant and did not take into
account the restricted development potentialities of the applicant's
fields. In any event, the entitlement to moral damages could not be
inherited by Mr Solomonides' descendants.
2. The Court's assessment
(a) Preliminary remark
- The
Court first observes that the Government requested to discontinue the
examination of the case by reason that the administrator of the
applicant's estate has applied for compensation before the IPC, thus
seeking full reparation under the laws of the “TRNC” (see
paragraph 30 above).
- It
is to be noted, however, that Mrs Karaviotou has withdrawn her
application to the IPC and that, as a consequence, the latter has
struck her claim out of its list of cases (see paragraphs 11-12
above).
- The
Court considers that it is not necessary to investigate the reasons
of Mrs Karaviotou's behaviour, for which the parties have given
different explanations (see paragraphs 13 and 32 above). What is
essential for the purposes of the present application is that no
parallel domestic proceedings concerning the issue of compensation
are pending while the Court is assessing the question of just
satisfaction.
- It
follows that nothing prevents the Court from continuing the
examination of the case under Article 41 of the Convention.
(b) The merits of the applicant's claim
- The
Court recalls that in its principal judgment it has concluded that
there was a continuing violation of the applicant's rights guaranteed
by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by virtue of the
complete denial of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his
properties in northern Cyprus (see paragraph 39 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 since 1974, the applicant had
effectively lost all access and control as well as all possibilities
to use and enjoy his properties (see paragraph 36 of the principal
judgment). The administrator of his estate is therefore entitled to a
measure of compensation in respect of losses directly related to this
violation of the applicant's rights as from the date of the deposit
of Turkey's declaration recognising the right of individual petition
under former Article 25 of the Convention, namely 22 January
1987, until the day of the applicant's death, namely 15 February 1998
(see paragraph 4 of the principal judgment; see also, mutatis
mutandis, 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 notes that the administrator of the
applicant's estate has not introduced an autonomous claim concerning
a potential violation of the property rights which the successors of
Mr Antonakis Solomonides might have acquired after his death,
but has merely successfully requested to pursue the application
lodged by the deceased (see paragraphs 12 and 13 of the principal
judgment and point 1 of its operative provisions). Under these
circumstances, no alleged pecuniary damage for loss of use can be
awarded for the time which has elapsed after the applicant's demise.
It is also to be noted that the documents produced by the
administrator of the applicant's estate (see paragraph 8 above) show
that in 2009 the 44 plots of land in respect of which just
satisfaction is sought were still registered in the applicant's name.
- In
the opinion of the Court, the valuations furnished by the
administrator of the applicant's estate 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 v. Turkey (just
satisfaction), cited above, § 31). Accordingly, in assessing the
pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, the Court has, as far as
appropriate, considered the estimates provided by the administrator
of his estate (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 notwithstanding its request for material to be
submitted relevant to assessing the 1974 market value of the
applicant's properties, the parties have produced few elements in
this respect. The Government have relied on the accuracy of the IPC
calculations (see paragraphs 36-37 above). The administrator of the
applicant's estate has referred to a statement made by a District
Land Officer according to which the valuation method used by the
Greek-Cypriot expert was “fair and reasonable and ...
consistent with the available comparable sales and existing
conditions, in the economy and property market in Cyprus at July –
August 1974” (see paragraph 27 above). Apart from these general
statements, the parties have failed to produce any practical example
of a sale or transaction carried on during the relevant period in
respect of comparable plots of land.
- The
Court further observes that the administrator of the applicant's
estate has 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 Mrs
Karaviotou are on the high side (see, mutatis mutandis,
Demades (just satisfaction), cited above, § 24).
Moreover, the expert appointed by the administrator of the
applicant's estate has calculated the loss of rents until the end of
2009, and not until 15 February 1998, date of the applicant's
death (see paragraphs 43 and 44 above).
- Finally,
the Court considers that an award should be made in respect of the
anguish and feelings of helplessness and frustration which, until his
death, the applicant must have experienced over the years in not
being able to use his properties as he saw fit (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 administrator of the applicant's estate in
respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (respectively
EUR 22,913,073 and EUR 70,000 – see paragraphs 25 and 29
above) are manifestly excessive, especially when compared to an
alleged 1974 market value of EUR 599,052 (see paragraph 23 above).
The Court considers that the sum which, according to the Government,
the IPC could have offered Mrs Karaviotou in respect of loss of use
(approximately EUR 1,364,534 – see paragraph 37 above)
constitutes a fair basis for compensating the damage sustained by the
applicant. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court
decides to award EUR 1,400,000
under the head of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- In
her just satisfaction claims of September 1999, the administrator of
the applicant's estate sought CYP 6,090.93 (approximately EUR 10,406)
for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This sum
included the cost of the expert report assessing the value of the
properties.
- On
6 October 2009 the administrator of the applicant's estate increased
her claim for costs and expenses up to EUR 22,856.25. She alleged
that the new valuation report had cost EUR 2,300 and that her legal
expenses for the period October 1999/October 2009 had amounted to
EUR 12,560.
- The
Government requested that the award for costs be kept to the minimum.
They alleged that had the applicant supplied reliable documentary
evidence at an earlier stage, it would have been easier to deal with
the issues raised by the present application.
- 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 violation 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 administrator of the applicant's estate's
claims for just satisfaction;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the administrator of the applicant's
estate, 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
1,400,000 (one million four 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 administrator of the applicant's estate and/or to the applicant's
heirs, 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 administrator of
the applicant's estate's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 July 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
