PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 50733/99) 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 Nuri Özkan (“the applicant”), on 14 May 1999.

The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court.

On 28 January 2003 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the administrative proceedings to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the remainder of the application at the same time.

THE FACTS

The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the district of Kuşadası in the province of Aydın.

On 9 June 1989 the Kuşadası District Council (hereinafter “the Council”) and the applicant signed an agreement. By virtue of this agreement the Council unconditionally allocated part of the historic castle in Kuşadası to the applicant to open and run a museum for an indefinite period. On 18 July 1989 the applicant was issued with a special title deed to the property enabling him to open the museum.

On 26 May 1990 the museum was opened to the public following the grant of a licence by the Ministry of Culture.

On 22 April 1991 the Council annulled the agreement of 9 June 1989 on the ground that the applicant had not signed a protocol with the Mayor of Kuşadası within 15 days from the date of the opening of the museum. Pursuant to such a protocol the applicant would have undertaken to pay the Council 40% of the money generated from the sale of the entrance tickets to visitors to the museum. Items displayed in the museum were removed from the museum by the Council's employees.

On 27 June 1991 the applicant brought an action before the Aydın Administrative Court requesting the annulment of the Council's decision of 22 April 1991.

On 12 November 1991 the Aydın Administrative Court annulled the decision on the ground that the Council had never informed the applicant about the protocol or warned him about its intention to rescind the agreement. The Council appealed against the decision.

On 2 May 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Aydın Administrative Court's decision of 12 November 1991.

On 28 September 1995 the Aydın Administrative Court acceded to the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and rejected the applicant's request to annul the Council's decision. The court noted that a clause in the initial agreement between the Council and the applicant had stipulated that 40% of the income would be handed over to the Council. The court further observed that the applicant had been reminded by the Council about this clause on 24 May 1990 and had been urged to sign the protocol.

On 27 February 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant's appeal.

On 3 April 1997 the applicant applied to the Supreme Administrative Court and requested the rectification of the latter's decision of 27 February 1997.

On 23 December 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant's request for rectification.