THE FACTS

[8-39] The creditor commenced execution proceedings against the debtors. He then brought an action, against the defendants and the applicants, for annulment of the acts and actions performed on the ground that the debtor failed to pay the bills he had drawn up.

The case in question concerns the sale of a residence. The plaintiff maintained that after the date when the bill had been drawn, the debtor sold the residence to the applicant Hesna Funda Baltalı’s husband for a price far lower than its real value; and that the residence was then donated by him to Hesna Funda Baltalı, who subsequently sold it to the applicant company Baltalı Gıda Hayvancılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. where she and her husband were a shareholder.

The plaintiff requested annulment of these acts as well as sale of the immovable by auction, arguing that its donation and sale had been malicious actions performed in order to preclude him from receiving his receivables. The incumbent court then annulled the acts performed in respect of the impugned immovable and granted the plaintiff authorization to commence compulsory execution proceedings.

Upon the plaintiff’s request for levying a provisional attachment on the immovable, the court issued an order for provisional attachment. The applicants challenged this order and requested that the provisional attachment be lifted against a security. The court rejected this request.

Claiming that they had suffered from lengthy enforcement of the provisional attachment, the applicants once again requested the court to lift the order for provisional attachment. The court acknowledged that the proceedings had lasted for a long time but decided not to lift the order.

V. EXAMINATION AND GROUNDS

40.         The Constitutional Court, at its session of 25 October 2018, examined the application and decided as follows.

A. Alleged Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time

41.         The applicants alleged that their right to trial within a reasonable time was violated.

42.         Following the individual applications, with Article 20 of Law no. 7145 dated 25 July 2018, promulgated in the Official Gazette No. 30495 of 31 July 2018, a provisional article was added to Law on the Remedying of Certain Applications Lodged with the European Court of Human Rights through Payment of Compensation.

43.         With Provisional Article added to Law no. 6384, it is provided that individual applications lodged with the Court on account of excessive length of the proceedings, delayed or incomplete execution or non-execution of judicial decisions or pending before the Constitutional Court as from the date of entry into force of this article shall be examined by the Human Rights Compensation Commission of the Ministry of Justice (“the Compensation Commission”), upon the application to be filed within three months as from the notification of the inadmissibility decision issued for non-execution of the remedies.

44.         The Court included in its case-law the legislation on the introduction of the opportunity to lodge an application with the Compensation Commission in relation to individual applications made before 31 July 2018 with the claim adjudication failed to conclude in a reasonable period of time or court decisions executed late or incompletely or failed to be executed (see Ferat Yüksel, §§ 11-14).

45.         In the judgment of Ferat Yüksel, the Court examined the remedy of lodging an application with the Compensation Commission in relation to individual applications lodged before 31 July 2018 with the claim adjudication failed to conclude in a reasonable period of time or court decisions executed late or incompletely or failed to be executed in terms of the capacity of being accessible, offering reasonable prospects of success, and providing adequate redress and discussed its effectiveness (see Ferat Yüksel, § 26).

46.         In brief, the Constitutional Court held in the Ferat Yüksel judgment that the aforementioned remedy is accessible, as it does not put individuals under financial burden and facilitates the application; that it is capable of providing a reasonable prospect of success for alleged violations as of the way it is arranged; that it has potential to provide adequate redress on account of the fact that it offers the possibility to award compensation and/or, where this is not possible, other possibilities for redress (Ferat Yüksel, §§ 27-34). In accordance with these grounds, the Court concluded that the examination of the application made without exhausting the remedy of lodging an application with the Compensation Commission, which is accessible at first sight and is considered to have the capacity to offer a prospect of success and provide adequate redress, is incompatible with the subsidiary nature of the remedy of individual application (see Ferat Yüksel, §§ 35, 36).

47.         In the present application, there is no circumstance which requires departure from the said judgment.

48.         For the reasons explained above, the application must be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies without being examined in terms of other admissibility criteria.

B. Alleged Violation of the Right to Property

49.         In the action filed for the annulment of the act which is the subject matter of the case where the applicants were the defendants, the applicants stated that the 10^th Chamber of the İzmir Civil Court of First Instance unjustly and unlawfully placed a temporary lien on the registry record of the independent section no. 3 with a land share of 2/32 of the immovable property with block no. 153, parcel no. 2 in the Bademler village of Izmir's Urla district. Moreover, the applicants expressed that the temporary lien became a punishment rather than an injunction, given that a period of approximately seven years had elapsed since the placement of the temporary lien. The applicants asserted that the claimants had sufficient guarantees to collect their receivables other than the immovable on which there was a lien. Accordingly, the applicants argued that the temporary lien was not necessary. The applicants stated that they were not able to use their property due to the temporary lien placed and that they could not make any dispositions regarding their property. Lastly, the applicants alleged that their right to property had been violated due to the placement of temporary lien on the immovable property and the prolongation of this process.

1. As Regards the Applicant Hesna Funda Baltalı

50.         In accordance with Article 46 (1) of Code no. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court dated 30/3/2011 entitled "Persons entitled to individual application", individual applications may only be filed by those whose existing and personal rights are directly affected by the alleged proceeding, act or negligence which has caused the violation.

51.         Accordingly, three fundamental preconditions must be met in order for a person to file an individual application with the Constitutional Court. These preconditions are the violation of the applicants’ existing right on account of a public proceeding or act or negligence; the applicant's being affected from the violation that is the subject matter of the application “personally” and “directly” and the allegation on the applicant's part that he/she was victimized (see Onur Doğanay, no.2013/1977, 9 January 2014, § 42).

52.         On the other hand, in order for an application to be accepted, it is not sufficient for an applicant to assert only that he/she was victimized, but he/she has to prove that he/she is directly affected by the violation or must convince the Court that he/she was victimized. In this respect, the thought or suspicion of being a victim is not sufficient for the existence of victim status (see Ayşe Hülya Potur, no. 2013/8479, 6 February 2014, § 24).

53.         Whereas in the present case, the complaint is based on the decision placing a temporary lien on the immovable property which is the subject matter of the action for annulment of the disposition. However, the subject matter of this case is the independent section number 3 with a land share of 2/32 of the immovable property with block no. 153, parcel no. 2 in the Bademler village of Izmir's Urla district. It has been observed that the decision on the placement in temporary lien was rendered on 10 July 2008 and concerned the immovable property in question. In the present case, the immovable property on which temporary lien was placed, which is the subject matter of the claim of violation of the right to property, was not registered in the land registry in the name of Hesna Funda Baltalı but in the name of the applicant Company. The applicant Hesna Funda Baltalı is the previous owner of the immovable property in question. As it has been held that this applicant's existing rights were not affected by the decision on the placement of temporary lien personally and directly, the applicant Hesna Funda Baltalı does not have a victim status concerning the claim that her right to property was violated.

54.         For the reasons explained, this part of the application, regarding the alleged violation of Hesna Funda Baltalı's right to property, must be declared inadmissible for being incompatible ratione personae, without examining other conditions of admissibility.

2.             As Regards the Applicant Baltalı Gıda Hayvancılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti.

a.             Complaint Concerning the Placement of Temporary Lien

55.         Article 148 § 3 of the Constitution and Article 45 (2) of Code no. 6216 stipulate that before lodging an individual application, all the administrative and judicial remedies provided for by the law in respect of the act of or negligence which constitutes the basis of the alleged violation must be exhausted. The obligation of the inferior courts to remedy violations of fundamental rights in the first place necessitates the exhaustion of legal remedies (see Necati Gündüz ve Recep Gündüz, no.2012/1027, 12 February 2013, §§ 19, 20; Güner Ergun and Others, no.2012/13,2 July 2013, § 26).

56.         Pursuant to Provisional Article 7 of Law no. 2004, appeals may be filed against court decisions in accordance with Article 265 (5) of the same Law, which was in force as of the date of the placement of the temporary lien as well as the date of the lodging of the application. In the present case, even though the applicant claims that the decision on the placement of the temporary lien was rendered unjustly and unlawfully, it is clear that the applicant can bring forward these allegations at the appeal stage pursuant to the aforementioned provision. Therefore, in the present case, the applicant lodged an individual application without exhausting the ordinary legal remedy within the scope of which it could bring forward its claims.

57.         For the explained reasons, this part of the application must be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies without being examined in terms of other admissibility criteria.

b.            The Complaint that the Temporary Lien Process Was Not Concluded within Reasonable Time

i.               Admissibility

58.         In the present case, the applicant complains that the temporary lien process has been continuing for more than six years. In these circumstances, it is necessary to determine whether there is a remedy during the course of which the applicant's complaint could be examined and effective and objective results could be obtained.

59.         In order to call into question the necessity of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, an administrative or judicial remedy to which the person claiming that his/her right has been violated could apply must be provided. Moreover, the legal remedy must be capable of redressing the alleged violation's consequences and be effective and accessible to the applicant with a reasonable effort and it should not be in theory yet be functional in practice. Not only the applicant could not be expected to exhaust a legal remedy which is non-existent, but also there is no obligation to exhaust the remedies that do not have de jure or de facto effect, do not have the capacity to remedy the consequences of the violation, or distant in practice from being accessible and usable due to the imposition of excessive and unusual formal conditions (see Fatma Yıldırım, no. 2014/6577, 16 February 2017, § 39).

60.         Article 259 of Law no. 2004 stipulates that in the event that the temporary lien is found to be unfair, the debtor and third parties may file an action against the creditor requesting the placement of temporary lien in order to receive compensation in respect of the damages incurred. Accordingly, in order for the relevant court to award compensation, the person requesting the placement of temporary lien must be proven to be wrong and damages must incur due to the temporary lien. However, it is also observed that the action, which can be brought on the condition that the request for the placement of the temporary lien is found to be unjust, does not cover the compensation of all damages related to the lien. Moreover, it has been assessed that this action is limited to the liabilities of the party requesting the placement of temporary lien.

61.         Besides, such an action that may be brought against the creditor must be considered as an element of the positive obligations of the state in respect of the right to property insofar as the temporary lien process is concerned. Accordingly, the interference must be examined considering all aspects of the applied process, including whether other criteria required for the protection of the right to property are met. In the present case, it must be examined whether all the necessary measures for the protection of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution were taken within the scope of the impugned temporary lien process.

62.         As mentioned above, the action for compensation provided for in Article 259 of Law no. 2004 is a remedy that can only be applied if the party in favour of whom a measure has been implemented is proven to be wrong at the end of the trial. Therefore, within the meaning of the present case, this is not considered to be a remedy that is effective and providing redress in terms of the consequences of the alleged violation.

63.         On the other hand, the Constitutional Court has taken into account the fact that the trial has not yet been concluded. Therefore, due to the ongoing trial and the subsidiary nature of the remedy of individual application, it is not possible to carry out an assessment as to whether the interim injunction was just or fair. Further, the applicant's allegation that the long duration of the ongoing interim injunction led to a violation of her right to property, does not constitute an allegation based on the outcome of the trial. Therefore, having regard to the fact that there is no effective remedy for the aforementioned complaint of the applicant, the alleged violation of the right to property must be declared admissible for not being manifestly ill-founded and there being no other grounds for its inadmissibility.

ii.            Merits

64.         Article 35 of the Constitution that will be taken as a basis in the assessment of the allegation, provides as follows:

"Everyone has the right to own and inherit property.

These rights may be limited by law only in view of public interest.

The exercise of the right to property shall not contravene public interest."

65.         Article 5 of the Constitution, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“The fundamental aims and duties of the State are to safeguard … the Republic and democracy, to ensure the welfare, peace, and happiness of the individual and society; to strive for the removal of political, economic, and social obstacles which restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in a manner incompatible with the principles of justice and of the social state governed by rule of law; and to provide the conditions required for the development of the individual’s material and spiritual existence.”

66.         The Constitutional Court is not bound by the legal qualification of the facts by the applicant and it makes such assessment itself (see Tahir Canan, no. 2012/969, 18 September 2013, § 16). Even though the applicant alleges that her right to a fair trial has been violated due to the unjust and unlawful placement of temporary lien, it has been understood that the primary claim of the applicant concerns the right to property on account of the restriction of her right to use and dispose of her property as a result of the decision of a temporary lien and the long duration of the relevant process. Subsequently, it has been held that the said claim of the applicant should be examined as a whole within the scope of the alleged violation of the right to property.

67.         As it is known that the immovable property which is the subject matter of the application and on which the temporary lien was placed is registered in the title deed on behalf of the applicant, it cannot be disputed that the applicant's immovable property constitutes an economic value.

(1)         General Principles

68.         In the present case, due to the debt relationship between private persons, the debtor's power of disposition over the immovable property was temporarily restricted on the basis of a court decision in order to guarantee the creditor's payment on time. Accordingly, the public authorities did not directly interfere with the applicant's right to property. However, the Constitutional Court has previously acknowledged in many decisions that the state has positive obligations in some cases, even in disputes between private persons (see Türkiye Emekliler Demeği, no. 2012/1035, 17 July 2014, § 34; Eyyüp Boynukara, no. 2013/7842, 17 February 2016, §§ 39-41; Osmanoğlu İnşaat Eğitim Gıda Temizlik Hizmetleri A.Ş., no. 2014/8649, 15 February 2017, § 44; and Selahattin Turan, no. 2014/11410, 22 June 2017, §§ 36-41).

69.         Real and effective protection of the right to property, guaranteed as a fundamental right in Article 35 of the Constitution, does not only depend on the state's avoidance of interference. In accordance with Articles 5 and 35 of the Constitution, the state also has positive obligations regarding the protection of the right to property. These positive obligations occasionally, including in disputes between private persons, require specific measures to protect the right to property (see Eyyüp Boynukara, §§ 39-41; and Osmanoğlu İnşaat Eğitim Gıda Temizlik Hizmetleri A.Ş., § 44).

70.         However, it must be noted that in certain cases, it is not possible to make a distinction between the positive and negative obligations of the state. Moreover, the principles to be implemented, regardless of whether the state has positive or negative obligations, are often significantly similar.

71.         Pursuant to Articles 5 and 35 of the Constitution, among its positive obligations, the state has an obligation to establish an effective enforcement system in terms of the execution of court decisions and the provision of redress for individuals' claims regardless of the existence of a dispute between private persons. In disputes between private persons, the state's positive obligations concerning the right to property are based on the balance of mutual rights and interests. This also applies for the enforcement of the receivables. As previously expressed by the Court, the rights of enforceable receivables fall within the scope of the right to property in accordance with Article 35 of the Constitution. Therefore, on the one hand, there is a receivable within the scope of the right to property of the creditor. Whereas on the other hand, there are the assets of the debtor within the scope of his/her ownership right that are envisaged to be confiscated and sold in order for the creditor to secure this receivable.

72.         In establishing such a system, the state is obliged to protect the rights and interests of the creditor and, when necessary, the debtor and other relevant third parties, by means of taking the necessary measures to protect the right to property of individuals. On the one hand, an effective enforcement remedy must be implemented in order for the creditor to obtain his/her receivables falling within his/her right to property; on the other hand, the debtor and other relevant persons affected by enforcement should be given the opportunity to appeal effectively so that they could claim that the interferences with their right to property have been arbitrary or unlawful.

73.         On the other hand, in order for a measure that restricts the right to property to be proportionate, it must be implemented proportionally both in terms of its scope and duration. It is inevitable that the implementation of these and similar measures in relation to the property rights of individuals will give rise to damage. However, such damage must not give rise to consequences that are excessive or more severe than the inevitable and, in the event, that such damage arises, the public authorities must redress it within a reasonable time through appropriate methods and means. Accordingly, the implementation of measures that constitute an interference with the right to property and the continuation of these measures for a certain period of time can be regarded as proportionate only if it does not impose an excessive individual burden on the person concerned. In other words, in case of measures that constitute an interference with the right to property, the public authorities implementing the measure have the obligation to act promptly and diligently. Otherwise, if the measure continues for an unreasonable period, a disproportionate burden will be imposed on the owner of the property by the indefinite postponement of the exercise of the authorities conferred by the right to property.

(2)         Application of Principles to the Present Case

74.         In the particular circumstances of the present case, the legislator aimed, by amending Law no. 2004, to establish a system in which the rights and interests of the debtor are safeguarded and the creditor could obtain his/her receivables without delay and without loss of monetary value. This Law provides the establishment of enforcement and bankruptcy offices, as well as enforcement courts for the enforcement of receivables and execution of judgments, so that the enforcement process operates under the supervision and responsibility of the state. The law enabled the creditor to obtain his/her receivables following the confiscation of the assets of the debtor and the conversion of the confiscated goods into money through the enforcement office at the end of the enforcement proceedings to be initiated upon the request of the creditor. The debtor, on the other hand, is provided with various ways of filing objections and actions against these procedures.

75.         The Court of Cassation’s case-law defines temporary lien, in brief, as the temporary restriction of the debtor's power of disposition over his/her assets by the enforcement office on the basis of a court decision in order to guarantee that the creditor's monetary receivables are paid on time. In these decisions, it is stated that the temporary lien, imposed in order to guarantee the procedures that will enable the creditor to obtain his/her monetary receivables at the end of the ultimate proceedings, is a temporary legal protection measure. The temporary lien aims to prevent the debtor from rendering the current or future enforcement proceedings ineffective and unsuccessful. The temporary lien measure, as a rule, is imposed on the debtor's assets that could be converted into monetary value.

76.         As of the present stage, the applicant has not been deprived of her property as a result of the court decision to place a temporary lien annotation on the land registry record of the immovable property in question. In addition, it has been observed that the immovable property was not actually seized, and there was no obstacle for the applicant to actually use and benefit from the immovable property. In addition to this, it must also be taken into account that the said measure was limited to the immovable property which was the subject matter of the dispute. However, the applicant's economic and legal dispositions over its immovable property were significantly restricted due to the said interim injunction annotation. Moreover, it is clear that the restriction in question had a negative effect on the value of the immovable property.

77.         The applicant is essentially not the principal debtor in the enforcement proceedings, which are the subject matter of the action for annulment of the proceeding. However, the creditor party filed an action for the annulment of the proceeding claiming that he sold the impugned immovable the applicant in order to prevent the debtor from obtaining his/her receivables. In the said case, taking into account the relevant provisions of Law no. 2004, the trial court decided to place a temporary lien on the applicant's immovable property in accordance with the provisions of the same Law regarding the temporary lien so that the case and enforcement would not be inconclusive. Hence, it is observed that that the temporary lien was based on clear, foreseeable and accessible provisions of law and it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the creditor’s receivable under the right to property. Furthermore, the applicant was given the opportunity to effectively challenge the imposition of temporary lien.

78.         The main purpose of the placement of the temporary lien on the impugned asset is to ensure that the creditor's monetary receivable is paid on time. Accordingly, it has been held that in the present case, the placement of the temporary lien annotation, limited only to the immovable property which is the subject matter of the case, that restricts the disposition authority on the immovable in a way to ensure the payment of the receivable falls within the margin of appreciation of the public authorities. However, having regard to the fact that in the event that is the subject matter of the application, the temporary lien annotation placed on the record of the applicant's immovable property in the land registry, has been in existence for approximately 10 years and 3 months since 10 July 2008, there is no doubt that this period is not reasonable when the proceedings are considered as a whole.

79.         In this respect, even though the state enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in terms of taking the necessary measures in order to guarantee a possible payment of a receivable and prevent it from becoming ineffective; and restricting the legal dispositions over the immovable property for a certain period of time within the framework of its positive obligations, as is the case with the present incident; the implementation of these measures must not impose an excessive burden on the owner of the property owner that exceeds the unavoidable level of suffering. In this respect, the public authorities implementing the measure to protect the rights of the other party of the legal relationship must also take into account the effects of the measure in question on the applicant's right to property and must not cause excessive interference.

80.         Whereas in the present case, it has been understood that the continuation of the temporary lien placed on the applicant's immovable property for more than ten years caused the applicant whose property rights were restricted more damage than reasonable. In spite of this fact, there is no remedy available for the compensation of the damage suffered by the applicant due to the excessive length of the measure due to the fault of the public authorities. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the temporary lien annotation that is the subject matter of the application, restricting the applicant's capability to carry out legal dispositions on its immovable property, has been in existence for nearly ten years and that the damage which the applicant had to endure for this reason was not compensated; it has been understood that the measure implemented put an excessive and extraordinary burden personally on the applicant. In this context, it has been held that the positive obligations of the state regarding the protection of the right to property in the present case were not fulfilled fully and effectively.

81.         Consequently, the Constitutional Court has found a violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution.

C. Application of Article 50 of Code no. 6216

82.         Article 50 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code no. 6216 on Establishment and Rules of Procedures of the Constitutional Court, dated 30 March 2011, reads as follows:

“(1) At the end of the examination of the merits it is decided either the right of the applicant has been violated or not. In cases where a judgment finding a violation has been rendered, what is required for the resolution of the violation and the consequences thereof shall be ruled on...

(2)         If the determined violation arises out of a court decision, the file shall be sent to the relevant court for holding the retrial in order for the violation and the consequences thereof to be removed. In cases where there is no legal interest in holding the retrial, the compensation may be adjudged in favour of the applicant or the remedy of filing a case before the general courts may be shown. The court, which is responsible for holding the retrial, shall deliver a decision over the file, if possible, in a way that will remove the violation and the consequences thereof that the Constitutional Court has explained in its decision of violation.”

83.         In the judgment of Mehmet Doğan ([Plenary], no. 2014/8875, 7 June 2018) of the Court, general principles as to the determination of how to redress the violation in the event of finding a violation were set out.

84.         Accordingly, in case of a finding of a violation of a fundamental right and freedom within the scope of an individual application, in order to consider the violation and its consequences be redressed, the basic rule is to restore the situation as much as possible, that is, to re-establish the situation before the violation. To ensure this, first of all, it is necessary to stop the ongoing violation, to remedy the decision or act subject to the violation and the consequences caused by them, to compensate pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages caused by the violation, if any, and to take other appropriate measures in this context (see Mehmet Doğan, § 55).

85.         In deciding on how to remedy the violation and its consequences, the Court cannot act by substituting itself for the administration, legal authorities, or legislative bodies. The Court decides on how to remedy the violation and its consequences and communicates this decision to the relevant authorities for them to take the necessary actions (see Mehmet Doğan, § 56).

86.         In order to remedy a violation and its consequences, the source of the violation must be determined in the first place. Accordingly, a violation may be caused by administrative acts and proceedings, judicial proceedings or legislative acts. Determining the source of the violation is important in determining the appropriate remedy (see Mehmet Doğan, § 57).

87.         The applicants requested that the decision on the placement of the temporary lien be annulled and claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation.

88.         The Court has concluded that the right to property was violated on account of the fact that the implementation duration of the temporary lien was excessive. For this reason, it has been understood that the violation in the present application is caused by the court decision.

89.         Even though the applicant requested that the temporary lien be lifted, it has been decided that the application be declared inadmissible on account of the fact that the legal remedies had not been exhausted with regard to the complaint against the implementation of the temporary lien within the circumstances of the present case. Therefore, having regard to the fact that it was decided that the right of property was violated by determining that the temporary lien process has not been concluded within in a reasonable time, it is not possible to decide on the annulment of the temporary lien that affects the rights of a third person. Accordingly, the judgment finding violation of the Constitutional Court requires the lifting of the temporary lien.

90.         Consequently, the effective remedy in terms of remedying the consequences of the violation in the incident which is the subject matter of this case is compensation. However, the applicant did not claim compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. For this reason, the finding of the violation must be sufficient and a copy of the judgment must be sent to the 10^th Chamber of the İzmir Civil Court of Instance for information purposes.

91.         The total court expense of TRY 2,186.10 including the court fee of TRY 206.10 and the counsel fee of TRY 1,980, which is calculated over the documents in the case file, must be reimbursed to the applicant.

VI. JUDGMENT

For these reasons, the Constitutional Court UNANIMOUSLY held 25 October 2018 that

A.           1. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial be declared INADMISSIBLE for non-exhaustion of legal remedies,

2.             Alleged violation of the right to property with regard to the applicant Hesna Funda Baltalı be declared INADMISSIBLE for incompatibility ratione personae,

3.             Alleged violation of the right to property in respect of the placement of the temporary lien on the applicant Baltalı Gıda Hayvancılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. be declared INADMISSIBLE for non-exhaustion of legal remedies,

4.             Alleged violation of the right to property be declared ADMISSIBLE on account of the fact that the temporary lien placed on the applicant Baltalı Gıda Hayvancılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti was not concluded within a reasonable time,

B.           The right to property guaranteed under Article 35 of the Constitution has been VIOLATED,

C.           The total court expense of TRY 2,186.10 including the court fee of TRY 206.10 and the counsel fee of TRY 1,980 be REIMBURSED JOINTLY to the applicants,

D.           The payments be made within four months as from the date when the applicant applies to the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance following the notification of the judgment; In case of any default in payment, legal INTEREST ACCRUE for the period elapsing from the expiry of four-month time-limit to the payment date;

E.            A copy of the judgment BE SENT to the 10^th Chamber of the İzmir Civil Court of First Instance (E. 2007/257),

A copy of the judgment be SENT to the Ministry of Justice.