Akdivar & Ors v Turkey [1996] ECHR 35

Turkish security forces burned applicants' homes in 1992, forcing them to abandon their village. The Court awarded compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage following its principal judgment finding violations of Article 8, Article 1 Protocol 1, and Article 25 of the Convention.

Facts

This case concerns claims for just satisfaction under Article 50 of the European Convention on Human Rights following the Court’s principal judgment of 16 September 1996. In that judgment, the Court found that the burning of the applicants’ houses on 10 November 1992 by Turkish security forces, which caused them to abandon their village of Kelekçi and relocate, constituted violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and Article 25 § 1 (right of individual petition).

Seven Turkish nationals brought claims for compensation. The Government contended that an agreement had been reached with the applicants through a protocol signed on 18 October 1996 by four applicants. However, the applicants’ legal representatives contested this, arguing the protocol was signed under duress without legal representation.

Issues

Existence of Agreement

Whether a valid settlement agreement existed between the parties under Rule 54 § 4 of the Rules of Court.

Pecuniary Damage

Assessment of compensation for destroyed houses, loss of income from cultivated land, household property, livestock, and alternative accommodation costs.

Non-Pecuniary Damage

Whether compensation should be awarded for non-pecuniary damage and whether punitive damages were appropriate.

Restoration of Rights

Whether the Court should order the Government to enable the applicants to return to their village.

Judgment

No Agreement Found

The Court held that no valid agreement existed for the purposes of Rule 54 § 4, stating:

Against the above background and in view of the vague and inconclusive wording and contents of the protocol, it cannot be said that that there has been an agreement for the purposes of Rule 54 § 4.

Pecuniary Damage Awards

The Court made awards for houses, loss of income from land (covering five years), household property, livestock and feed, and accommodation costs. Regarding registered property records, the Court noted:

Bearing in mind the rural area in which the events took place and that the experts were unable to visit the applicants’ village, it does not regard it as conclusive that no record exists in respect of the houses of four of the applicants.

Awards were converted to pounds sterling due to high Turkish inflation.

Non-Pecuniary Damage

The Court awarded GBP 8,000 to each applicant but rejected claims for punitive damages.

Restoration of Rights

The Court declined to make orders for restoration, holding:

It falls to the Committee of Ministers acting under Article 54 of the Convention to supervise compliance in this respect.

Implications

This judgment is significant for establishing principles regarding just satisfaction in cases of state destruction of property. It demonstrates that alleged settlement agreements must be clear and unambiguous to be valid. The Court’s approach to valuation evidence in regions inaccessible due to security concerns, accepting claims where official records were incomplete, provides important guidance for similar cases. The judgment reinforces that restitutio in integrum orders and supervision of compliance fall within the Committee of Ministers’ competence under Article 54, not the Court’s Article 50 jurisdiction.

Verdict: The Court dismissed the Government’s claim that an agreement had been reached (17 votes to 1), awarded specified sums in pounds sterling for pecuniary damage to each applicant, awarded GBP 8,000 each for non-pecuniary damage, awarded GBP 8,140 for costs and expenses, ordered 8% annual interest on late payments, and dismissed the remainder of the claims including requests for restoration of rights and punitive damages.

Source: Akdivar & Ors v Turkey [1996] ECHR 35