PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 11181/04) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Celal Çağlar (“the applicant”), on 2 February 2004.

The applicant was represented by Ms Tuğba Çağlar, a lawyer practising in Trabzon. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 23 October 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Trabzon.

On 6 October 1995 the applicant signed a contract with POAŞ (Petrol Ofisi A.Ş.), formerly a State-owned enterprise, for the operation of a petrol station. Having obtained a construction permit and carried out certain building work at the site, the applicant applied for an operations licence but was refused on grounds of safety, due to the proximity of the petrol station to a railway.

On 20 June 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the Ankara Commercial Court for the termination of the contract, which he claimed was null and void due to the impossibility of obtaining the operations licence. The applicant also requested the reimbursement of his expenditure, together with interest (case no. 1997/305).

On 25 April 2001 the Ankara Commercial Court partially granted the applicant's request by declaring the contract null and void and by ordering the return of the guarantee previously paid by the applicant to the POAŞ, namely 6,290,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest. The Court rejected the request for the reimbursement of the applicant's remaining expenditure.

On 26 October 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The parties requested rectification of this decision.

On 3 June 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. It indicated in particular that the first-instance court had not sufficiently examined whether the POAŞ could be ordered to reimburse the applicant for the expenses incurred in the construction work carried out on the petrol station.

On 21 August 2002 the applicant lodged a further complaint with the Ankara Commercial Court under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations alleging that he had sustained additional loss exceeding the late-payment interest payable as a result of the delay in reimbursing the guarantee (case no. 2002/567). This case was joined to the initial case (no. 1997/305).

On 30 December 2003 the Ankara Commercial Court partially granted the applicant's requests and awarded him TRL 5,138,188,500 for the expenses incurred in relation to the construction work and TRL 2,000,000,000 for his additional financial loss claimed in case no. 2002/567, plus interest.

On 8 February 2005 the Court of Cassation partially quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on account of the insufficient factual examination of the alleged additional financial loss.

On 25 April 2007 the Ankara Commercial Court awarded the applicant TRL 199,413,000,000 for his additional financial loss, plus interest.

On 22 October 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Ankara Commercial Court on procedural grounds.

The Ankara Commercial Court decided in favour of the applicant on 5 November 2008 and this decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 23 March 2009. The applicant subsequently recovered from the POAŞ the total amount of 222,910 new Turkish liras TRY; (approximately 100,000 euros; EUR), which included approximately EUR 95,000 for the late return of the guarantee paid by the applicant in 1995.

In April 2009 the applicant lodged a further complaint with the Ankara Commercial Court under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations, alleging that he had sustained additional losses exceeding the late-payment interest payable as a result of the delay in reimbursing the expenditure incurred by him. According to the information in the case file, these proceedings are still pending before the Ankara Commercial Court.