SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 31592/05
by Hasan BAŞAK
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 25 August 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Hasan Başak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1926 and lives in Gaziantep. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Akdoğan, a lawyer practising in Mersin.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date the applicant’s plot of land was expropriated by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources for the construction of the Birecik Dam.
On 29 May 2000 the applicant lodged an application with the Nizip Civil Court, requesting additional compensation for the expropriation of his land.
On 28 December 2001 the Nizip Civil Court awarded the applicant additional compensation of 41,441,760,000 Turkish Liras (TRL) (approximately 33,221 euros (EUR)).
On 13 May 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.
On 28 February 2005 the administration paid the applicant TRL 177,060,270,000 (approximately EUR 103,555) in additional compensation together with interest.
COMPLAINT
Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the delay in the payment of the additional compensation and the financial loss he suffered as a result of this delay.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the loss he 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 132,984,273,087 (approximately EUR 77,777). The applicant received TRL 177,060,270,000 (approximately EUR 103,555) which is 133.1 % of the full compensation. Thus, the Court observes that the applicant suffered no damage in respect of the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Nizip Civil Court on 28 December 2001. The interest rate applied to the additional compensation was sufficient to compensate the applicant 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 applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the excessive length of the period during which the administration had failed to enforce the judgment given in his favour.
The Court considers that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It further 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 applicant’s 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