I correctly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in ALICI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2025-09-23
  • Communication date: 2014-09-05
  • Application number(s): 70098/12
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1, 6, 6-1, 10, 10-1, 11, 11-1, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage
    Just satisfaction)
    Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
    Just satisfaction)
  • Result: No violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.528195
  • Prediction: No violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are members of KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions) and Eğitim-Sen (Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of the Education and Science Workers’ Union).
On 27 March 2012 the Turkish Parliament prepared a draft bill to amend the Law on Public Workers’ Unions (Law No.
4688).
While this draft was being discussed before Parliament, KESK organised a meeting in Ankara to protest against the draft bill.
The aim was to draw public attention to and to achieve the withdrawal of this bill.
On 27 March 2012 the applicants departed for Ankara in order to participate in the demonstration.
At around 11.40 p.m. the applicants’ bus was stopped by police officers.
Subsequently, the applicants were taken into police custody for the purpose of conducting an identity check pursuant to Article 40 of the Misdemeanours Act (Law no.
5326).
In their submissions before the Court, the applicants state that they submitted their identities to the police officers.
There is no official report or document regarding the conduct of their identity check in the case file.
On 28 March 2012 the applicants were released from police custody.
However, they were unable to attend the meeting organised by KESK.
The Adana Governorship imposed administrative fines in an amount of 82 Turkish liras (approximately 28 Euros) on each applicant.
It held that Article 40 of the Misdemeanours Act (Law no.
5326) had been infringed by the applicants’ refusal to disclose their identities to the police.
The applicants filed objections against the decisions.
On 9 May 2012, 25 May 2012, 12 July 2012, 31 August 2010, 3 September 2012, 4 September 2012 the Adana Magistrates’ Court dismissed the applicants’ objections by decisions against which no appeal was available, without holding hearings.
B.
Relevant domestic law The relevant sections of the Misdemeanors Act (Law no.
5326) read: Section 27 “Objections to administrative sanctions or fines shall be brought before the criminal magistrates’ court.” Section 28 “... (4) The court shall notify the claimant of the defendant’s pleas.
The court may hear the parties on a set day and [at a set] time, either at the parties’ request or on its own motion.
There shall be at least one week between the notification and the hearing day.
Both the parties or their representatives shall be present during the hearing.
The decision may be rendered in the parties’ absence if they are not present without legitimate reason.
This shall be clearly specified in the notification letter.
(7) After having evaluated all the evidence in its possession and having heard the submissions of both parties, the court shall give the party against whom the fine or sanction was issued [the opportunity] to make a final statement.
The court shall render its final decision in the presence of both parties.
(8) The court, a. rejects the objection if it finds the fine or sanction to be lawful; b. annuls the fine or sanction if it finds it to be unlawful.
10) Decisions of the magistrates’ courts, concerning fines up to 3,000 Turkish Liras are final.” Section 40 “(1) Persons shall have an administrative fine of 50 Turkish liras imposed if, upon the request of a public official acting within his/her duty, they refuse to give information or give wrong information about their identity or address.
(2) If someone’s identity cannot be determined due to his/her refusal to give information or by giving wrong information, he/she shall be seized and the public prosecutor shall be informed immediately.
He/she shall be arrested and if needed, be remanded in detention until determination of his/her identity.” COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that their detention from 27 March 2012 until 28 March 2012 was in breach of Article 5 of the Convention.
They further complain under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that they were unable to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance, as there were no public hearings during their trials.
Invoking Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicants complain that their detention prevented them from taking part in the demonstration, which constituted a violation of their freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 67180/11)

JUDGMENT(Just satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
23 September 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Vasilka Sancin, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints about the allegedly unlawful expropriation of their properties by the State authorities. 2. In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2024 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that the expropriation of the applicants’ properties had not been carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law” and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 67180/11, §§ 16-17 and point 3 of the operative provisions, 11 July 2024). It also held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as the domestic courts’ final judgment had not been enforced, and that it was not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (ibid., §§ 22 and 23 and points 4-5 of the operative provisions). 3. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants sought just satisfaction. 4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants 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., § 26 and point 7 of the operative provisions). The Court also requested the parties to provide a duly substantiated valuation of the applicants’ properties in accordance with the principles enumerated in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan ((just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, §§ 33-37, 21 March 2019), in case they failed to settle the matter. 5. The applicant and the Government each filed observations, which were transmitted to the other party for comments. THE LAW
ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
6. 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.”
7. Each applicant originally claimed 610,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, which included (i) compensation for the properties, (ii) an additional 20% compensation under Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007 (“the additional 20% compensation”), (iii) an additional 10% compensation under Article 66 of the Law on the Expropriation of Land for State Needs (“compensation for hardship”) (see Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 69-70, 21 September 2021), and (iv) adjustments for interest on the basis of the applicable rates of the Central Bank, without specifying the amounts (“the adjustments for interest”). 8. In their observations following the delivery of the principal judgment, the applicants partly reduced their claims, taking account of the fact that in the principal judgment the Court had held that the part of the complaint concerning their claims in respect of the plot of land underlying and attached to the building where their flats had been situated was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto. Each applicant claimed EUR 350,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, which included compensation for the properties, the additional 20% compensation, compensation for hardship and the adjustments for interest. The applicants did not present any valuation report, despite the Court’s explicit request in that regard (see paragraph 4 above). They relied, instead, on the letter from a private company indicating the market value of their properties (209,440 Azerbaijani manats (“AZN”)), which had been presented before the domestic courts and submitted together with their just satisfaction claims before the Court. 9. The Government provided an expert valuation in respect of the properties in question, which estimated their market value together with adjustments. The Government admitted that the domestic courts’ judgment awarding the applicants compensation (see paragraph 2 above) remained unenforced. 10. The Court firstly refers to its findings in the principal judgment (paragraphs 13-14) concerning the applicants’ possessions. In particular, it held that the applicants’ two flats (with surface areas of 38 sq. m and 57.2 sq. m) constituted their “possessions”. 11. As to the applicants’ claims concerning the additional 20% compensation and compensation for hardship, the Court notes that the applicants had not raised the issue of the applicability of the relevant provisions (see paragraph 7 above) in their claims before the domestic courts. Nor had they raised, or otherwise argued that issue in their applications submitted to the Court. Accordingly, having regard to these circumstances and the fact that the Court was not given an opportunity to determine whether the applicants had a legitimate expectation under domestic law as to the additional compensation claimed, which is a question related to the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, these parts of the claims should also be dismissed (compare Akhverdiyev, cited above, § 31, and Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (just satisfaction), nos. 77919/11 and 13 others, § 15, 14 January 2025). 12. As to the compensation for the properties in question, the Court considers that the assessment of pecuniary damage in this case should be based on the principles adopted in Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy ((just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, 22 December 2009) and reiterated in Akhverdiyev (cited above, § 33). 13. In this connection, the Court firstly notes that the letter from the private company referred to by the applicants merely provided estimated values and lacked any explanation of the methodology used or any references to previous expert opinions or to any other supporting data. The letter cannot therefore constitute an expert report for the purposes of valuation of the damage (compare Maharramov v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 5046/07, §§ 17 and 19, 9 May 2019). 14. The Court reiterates that it is for applicants to show that pecuniary damage has resulted from the violation alleged. Applicants should submit relevant documents to prove, as far as possible, not only the existence but also the amount or value of the damage (see, for example, Vasilevski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 22653/08, § 66, 28 April 2016). 15. Moreover, the Court has previously stressed that when it adjourns the question of just satisfaction as it did in this case, it does so in order to provide the parties with an opportunity to reach a friendly settlement or to submit written observations in the latter case to ensure that the application of Article 41 is ready for decision (see Maharramov, cited above, § 19). 16. In these circumstances, the Court will proceed on the basis of the valuation submitted by the Government. 17. The Court observes that the sum which had been awarded to the applicants by the domestic courts remains unpaid to date. While stressing that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the relevant final domestic judgment which remains enforceable, the Court considers that this amount should be subtracted from the pecuniary award to be made in the present judgment (compare Bagvanov and Others, cited above, § 21). 18. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 11,000 plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts. 19. Each applicant claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 20. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed were excessive. 21. In their observations following the delivery of the principal judgment each applicant claimed EUR 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, arguing that the domestic courts judgment remained unenforced. 22. Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicants jointly the sum of EUR 4,700 under this head for the violation of Article 6 of the Convention (non‐enforcement of final judgment) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 23. Each applicant claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of legal fees for their representation before the domestic courts and the Court. The first applicant claimed, in addition, AZN 200 for postal expenses. 24. The Government submitted that the costs claimed for legal services were exaggerated and that no evidence substantiating the actual expenses had been presented by the applicants. 25. The Court reiterates that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, all claims for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with any relevant supporting documents, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part. 26. The Court notes that the part of the claims in respect of legal expenses is not supported by documentary evidence and must therefore be rejected (compare Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 97, 1 June 2017). Having regard to the receipts provided by the first applicant, the Court awards her EUR 72 for postal expenses. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 September 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applicants:
No. Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Type and size of property (according to the ownership documents)
Compensation awarded to the applicants jointly by the domestic courts
Just satisfaction claims
Amounts awarded by the Court
1. Leyla
Islam gizi YUNUSOVA
1955
Two flats with surface areas of 38 sq. m and 57.2 sq. m
AZN 171,360 (approximately EUR 161,834 at the relevant time) in respect of pecuniary damage
EUR 350,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 5,000 for legal fees and AZN 200 for postal expenses. Jointly to the applicants:
EUR 11,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

To the first applicant:
EUR 72 for costs and expenses. 2. Arif
Seyfulla oglu YUNUSOV
1955
EUR 350,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 67180/11)

JUDGMENT(Just satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
23 September 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Vasilka Sancin, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints about the allegedly unlawful expropriation of their properties by the State authorities. 2. In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2024 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that the expropriation of the applicants’ properties had not been carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law” and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 67180/11, §§ 16-17 and point 3 of the operative provisions, 11 July 2024). It also held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as the domestic courts’ final judgment had not been enforced, and that it was not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (ibid., §§ 22 and 23 and points 4-5 of the operative provisions). 3. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants sought just satisfaction. 4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants 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., § 26 and point 7 of the operative provisions). The Court also requested the parties to provide a duly substantiated valuation of the applicants’ properties in accordance with the principles enumerated in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan ((just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, §§ 33-37, 21 March 2019), in case they failed to settle the matter. 5. The applicant and the Government each filed observations, which were transmitted to the other party for comments. THE LAW
ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
6. 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.”
7. Each applicant originally claimed 610,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, which included (i) compensation for the properties, (ii) an additional 20% compensation under Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007 (“the additional 20% compensation”), (iii) an additional 10% compensation under Article 66 of the Law on the Expropriation of Land for State Needs (“compensation for hardship”) (see Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 69-70, 21 September 2021), and (iv) adjustments for interest on the basis of the applicable rates of the Central Bank, without specifying the amounts (“the adjustments for interest”). 8. In their observations following the delivery of the principal judgment, the applicants partly reduced their claims, taking account of the fact that in the principal judgment the Court had held that the part of the complaint concerning their claims in respect of the plot of land underlying and attached to the building where their flats had been situated was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto. Each applicant claimed EUR 350,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, which included compensation for the properties, the additional 20% compensation, compensation for hardship and the adjustments for interest. The applicants did not present any valuation report, despite the Court’s explicit request in that regard (see paragraph 4 above). They relied, instead, on the letter from a private company indicating the market value of their properties (209,440 Azerbaijani manats (“AZN”)), which had been presented before the domestic courts and submitted together with their just satisfaction claims before the Court. 9. The Government provided an expert valuation in respect of the properties in question, which estimated their market value together with adjustments. The Government admitted that the domestic courts’ judgment awarding the applicants compensation (see paragraph 2 above) remained unenforced. 10. The Court firstly refers to its findings in the principal judgment (paragraphs 13-14) concerning the applicants’ possessions. In particular, it held that the applicants’ two flats (with surface areas of 38 sq. m and 57.2 sq. m) constituted their “possessions”. 11. As to the applicants’ claims concerning the additional 20% compensation and compensation for hardship, the Court notes that the applicants had not raised the issue of the applicability of the relevant provisions (see paragraph 7 above) in their claims before the domestic courts. Nor had they raised, or otherwise argued that issue in their applications submitted to the Court. Accordingly, having regard to these circumstances and the fact that the Court was not given an opportunity to determine whether the applicants had a legitimate expectation under domestic law as to the additional compensation claimed, which is a question related to the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, these parts of the claims should also be dismissed (compare Akhverdiyev, cited above, § 31, and Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (just satisfaction), nos. 77919/11 and 13 others, § 15, 14 January 2025). 12. As to the compensation for the properties in question, the Court considers that the assessment of pecuniary damage in this case should be based on the principles adopted in Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy ((just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, 22 December 2009) and reiterated in Akhverdiyev (cited above, § 33). 13. In this connection, the Court firstly notes that the letter from the private company referred to by the applicants merely provided estimated values and lacked any explanation of the methodology used or any references to previous expert opinions or to any other supporting data. The letter cannot therefore constitute an expert report for the purposes of valuation of the damage (compare Maharramov v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 5046/07, §§ 17 and 19, 9 May 2019). 14. The Court reiterates that it is for applicants to show that pecuniary damage has resulted from the violation alleged. Applicants should submit relevant documents to prove, as far as possible, not only the existence but also the amount or value of the damage (see, for example, Vasilevski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 22653/08, § 66, 28 April 2016). 15. Moreover, the Court has previously stressed that when it adjourns the question of just satisfaction as it did in this case, it does so in order to provide the parties with an opportunity to reach a friendly settlement or to submit written observations in the latter case to ensure that the application of Article 41 is ready for decision (see Maharramov, cited above, § 19). 16. In these circumstances, the Court will proceed on the basis of the valuation submitted by the Government. 17. The Court observes that the sum which had been awarded to the applicants by the domestic courts remains unpaid to date. While stressing that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the relevant final domestic judgment which remains enforceable, the Court considers that this amount should be subtracted from the pecuniary award to be made in the present judgment (compare Bagvanov and Others, cited above, § 21). 18. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 11,000 plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts. 19. Each applicant claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 20. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed were excessive. 21. In their observations following the delivery of the principal judgment each applicant claimed EUR 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, arguing that the domestic courts judgment remained unenforced. 22. Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicants jointly the sum of EUR 4,700 under this head for the violation of Article 6 of the Convention (non‐enforcement of final judgment) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 23. Each applicant claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of legal fees for their representation before the domestic courts and the Court. The first applicant claimed, in addition, AZN 200 for postal expenses. 24. The Government submitted that the costs claimed for legal services were exaggerated and that no evidence substantiating the actual expenses had been presented by the applicants. 25. The Court reiterates that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, all claims for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with any relevant supporting documents, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part. 26. The Court notes that the part of the claims in respect of legal expenses is not supported by documentary evidence and must therefore be rejected (compare Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 97, 1 June 2017). Having regard to the receipts provided by the first applicant, the Court awards her EUR 72 for postal expenses. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 September 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applicants:
No. Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Type and size of property (according to the ownership documents)
Compensation awarded to the applicants jointly by the domestic courts
Just satisfaction claims
Amounts awarded by the Court
1. Leyla
Islam gizi YUNUSOVA
1955
Two flats with surface areas of 38 sq. m and 57.2 sq. m
AZN 171,360 (approximately EUR 161,834 at the relevant time) in respect of pecuniary damage
EUR 350,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 5,000 for legal fees and AZN 200 for postal expenses. Jointly to the applicants:
EUR 11,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

To the first applicant:
EUR 72 for costs and expenses. 2. Arif
Seyfulla oglu YUNUSOV
1955
EUR 350,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.