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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> TOSUN and Others v Turkey - 4557/08 [2011] ECHR 1470 (13 September 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1470.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1470 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications nos.
4557/08, 4711/08, 4777/08 and 10454/08
by TOSUN and
Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub
Popović,
President,
András
Sajó,
Paulo
Pinto de Albuquerque,
judges,
and Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 15 January 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Necati Tosun, Ms Nefise Kılıç, Ms Nazmiye Önol and Mr İdris Ay were Turkish nationals who were born in 1930, 1933, 1926 and 1921, respectively, and lived in Bursa and Balıkesir. They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Demirkan, a lawyer practising in Bursa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized the applicants’ plots of lands located in Bursa and Balıkesir without expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicants subsequently lodged separate civil actions in order to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their properties, which resulted in their favour.
At the time of the communication of the applications to the respondent Government on 13 May 2009, the administration had still not paid the applicants the amounts awarded by domestic court judgments, despite the lapse of approximately four years.
By a letter dated 24 June 2009 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants had died on 5 July 2006, 27 May 1990, 6 March 2006 and 1 January 2006, respectively.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained that the failure of the domestic authorities to execute the domestic courts’ judgments had amounted to a breach of their right to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.
The Court reiterates that it has to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it, and is therefore obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006 III). Thus, even though the Government raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione personae in respect of the instant cases, the Court nevertheless has to examine it of its own motion (see Kolarić-Kišur v. Croatia (dec.), no. 17129/05, 17 September 2009).
In this connection, the Court reiterates that an application cannot be brought in the name of a deceased person, since a deceased person is unable, even through a representative, to lodge an application with the Court (see Yaşa v. Turkey, no. 22495/93, Commission’s report of 8 April 1997, § 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI). As it is undisputed that the applicants had died long before their representative introduced the applications in their names, it follows that the cases have not been brought by persons who can be regarded as applicants for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009). Therefore, the present applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 (see, for example, Dupin v. Croatia (dec.), no. 36868/03, 7 July 2009; Kolarić-Kišur (dec.), cited above).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović
Deputy Registrar President