4.  On an unspecified date, the applicant company signed a loan agreement with Yurtbank and registered a mortgage in respect of a plot of land measuring 20,827 sq.m in Istanbul. In 1999, following the applicant company’s delay in its monthly payments, the bank initiated enforcement proceedings. By a decision dated 21 December 1999, the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (Bankacılık Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu) decided to transfer the management and control of Yurtbank to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (Tasarruf Mevduat Sigorta Fonu – hereinafter referred to as “the Fund”). 5.  At the end of the enforcement proceedings, the Enforcement Court decided that the land in question would be sold at public auction. Before the auction, the Kartal Enforcement Office ordered an expert’s report, and the market value of the land was established at 6,555,945,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL). 6.  On 19 February 2001 the Fund decided that Yurtbank be merged into Sümerbank, a State-owned bank. 7.  The Enforcement Office announced two dates of public auction, namely 27 February and 9 March 2001, for the sale of the land. Since a bid amounting to at least 60% of the market value of the land, as determined by the experts, could not be obtained during the first auction, the land was sold at the second auction to the sole bidder, namely Sümerbank, which offered TRL 2,623,070,000,000, corresponding to slightly more than 40% of the market value. 8.  On 15 March 2001 the applicant company applied to the Kartal Enforcement Court to obtain the annulment of the public auction, alleging that there had been several procedural shortcomings in its organisation. In this respect, the applicant company maintained in the first place that there had been an error in the notice of the public auction. While the correct plot number was 111/4, in the notice the number had been written as 11/4. Furthermore, according to the applicant company, the holding of the second auction on a legal holiday had had a negative impact on attendance. 9.  On 22 October 2002 the court found for the applicant company and annulled the public auction held on 9 March 2001. 10.  On 3 February 2003 the Court of Cassation held that the first instance court’s reasoning in annulling the auction had not been in line with domestic law. In this connection, it maintained that the typing error regarding the plot number of the land was minor and that in the notice the location of the land had been described in detail, thus avoiding any confusion. As a result, the typing error in the notice did not require the annulment of the auction. The court further made a distinction between public and legal holidays. It stated that contrary to public holidays, government agencies continued to work on legal holidays. In the instant case, 9 March 2001 had been declared a legal holiday by the Council of Ministers, but this fact did not necessitate the postponement of the auction. 11.  The Court of Cassation nevertheless ruled that the auction should in any event be annulled, because in order to be able to sell the land to the bidder, the bid in the second auction should have covered 40% of the market value of the land, together with the costs and expenses incurred for the sale of the land. The Court of Cassation calculated that the expenses amounted to TRL 875,875,000. As a result, it stated that a valid bid should have amounted to at least TRL, 2,623,253,875,000. It accordingly amended the reasoning for the annulment, but upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. 12.  On 11 March 2003 the defendant declared in writing that it waived any claim in respect of the costs and expenses incurred for the sale of the land. Relying on this declaration, on 14 March 2003 it requested the rectification of the decision of 3 February 2003. 13.  On 21 May 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the defendant’s argument and decided to quash the decision of 3 February 2003. 14.  The case was accordingly remitted to the Enforcement Court. On 11 November 2003 the first-instance court decided to maintain its initial decision. Consequently, the case was brought before the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation. On 24 March 2004 the Joint Civil Chambers supported the reasoning of the relevant chamber of the Court of Cassation and quashed the decision of the Enforcement Court. 15.  On 21 September 2004 the first-instance court decided to abide by the decision of the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation. It consequently dismissed the case and ordered the payment of a fine amounting to 10% of the object of the dispute, namely TRL 262,307,000,000 (approximately 140,000 euros (EUR)). 16.  On 14 January 2005 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant company’s request for an appeal and this decision was notified on 10 February 2005. 17.  According to the information received from the applicant company, as of 5 July 2007 the applicant company had not yet paid the fine in question.