SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 41091/05
by Hasan AYDIN and Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
	Françoise Tulkens, President,
	Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
	Rıza Türmen,
	Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
	Danutė Jočienė,
	András Sajó,
	Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 October 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Hasan Aydın, Mr İmam Hüseyin Aydın and Ms Hamiyet Şen, are Turkish nationals and live in Şanlıurfa. They are represented before the Court by Mr M.Ş. Yıldız, a lawyer practising in Gaziantep.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date the applicants’ plot of land was expropriated by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources for the construction of the Birecik Dam.
On 5 April 1999 the applicants lodged an application with the Birecik Civil Court requesting additional compensation for the expropriation of their land.
On 10 April 2001 the Birecik Civil Court awarded the applicants additional compensation of 997,011,583 Turkish Liras (TRL) (approximately 897 euros (EUR)).
On 8 October 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.
On 30 May 2005 the administration paid the applicants TRL 4,850,270,000 (approximately EUR 2,838) in additional compensation, together with interest.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the excessive delay in the payment of the additional compensation, coupled with the low interest rates, had caused them to suffer a financial loss.
The applicants further maintained that the delay in the payment despite a definitive court order had breached their right to a fair hearing, within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.  The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the loss they had suffered due to the delay in the payment of the additional compensation and the insufficient interest rates.
The Court finds that - using the same method of calculation as in the  judgment of 9 July 1997 ( 1997-IV, p. 1311, §§ 35, 36 and 39) and having regard to the relevant economic data at the material time - on the date of the payment the amount of full compensation should have been TRL 3,864,830,950 (approximately EUR 2,261). The applicants received TRL 4,850,270,000 (approximately EUR 2,838) which is 125.5 % of the full compensation. Thus, the Court observes that the applicants suffered no damage in respect of the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Birecik Civil Court on 10 April 2001. The interest rate applied to the additional compensation was sufficient to compensate the applicants for any financial loss.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-foundedand must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2.  The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the period during which the administration had failed to enforce the judgment given in their favour.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning the length of proceedings on account of the delay in the payment of additional compensation;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Sally Dollé	Françoise Tulkens
	Registrar	President