PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 34395/04) 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 Cemil Akkaya (“the applicant”), on 14 June 2004.

The applicant was represented by Mr G.C. Ekşioğlu, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 28 November 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 applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ankara.

On 22 October 1997 the applicant, who worked in a private company at the material time, had an accident during working hours that led to his partial disability.

On 19 June 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Ankara Labour Court against his employer, requesting compensation for the pecuniary damage he had suffered as a result of the accident.

On 30 April 2003 the applicant lodged another action with the same court against his employer, this time requesting compensation for non‑pecuniary damage.

On 27 May 2003 the court joined two cases.

During the proceedings the first-instance court postponed the hearings awaiting information and documents from a number of State authorities, such as the public prosecutor's office and the Social Security Institution, as well as the reports of experts appointed by the court.

On 21 June 2004 the Ankara Labour Court partially accepted the applicant's claims and awarded him compensation for non-pecuniary damage, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from the date of the incident.

On 4 November 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court.

In his submissions of 4 August 2008 and 29 May 2009, the applicant informed the Court that he had filed a case with the Ankara Labour Court against the company, requesting additional compensation (munzam zarar) for the damage he had sustained as a result of the delay in payment. This case was dismissed on 21 April 2009.

In his letter of 7 August 2009 to the Court, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the courts' refusal to grant him additional compensation violated his right to property.

The applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was separated from the present application and was registered under application no. 53791/09.