6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Elazığ. 7.  On 20 June 1991 the applicant was seriously injured in an explosion of a bomb placed in the garden of the Military barracks in Gaziosmanpaşa district of İstanbul. He was ten years old at the time of the events. 8.  On 10 February 1992 the applicant’s father, acting as his legal guardian, filed a petition with the Ministry of Internal Affairs requesting compensation for the damage the applicant had sustained. The Ministry of Internal Affairs rejected this request on 15 April 1992. 9.  On 3 June 1992 the applicant’s father brought an action for compensation before the İstanbul Administrative Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereinafter “the respondent”). 10.  On 16 June 1992 the case was notified to the respondent which submitted its observations on 11 August 1992. 11.  On 3 March 1993 the İstanbul Administrative Court dismissed the respondent’s preliminary objection. 12.  Between 3 March 1993 and 4 December 1994 the first-instance court took certain procedural decisions on 10 December 1993, 27 June 1994 and 16 September 1994. 13.  On 4 December 1994 the İstanbul Administrative Court considered that there was neither fault nor negligence attributable to the authorities and dismissed the case. 14.  On 30 January 1995 the applicant appealed against the aforementioned decision and requested the suspension of the execution of the judgment. On 30 January 1995 the applicant paid the expenses pertaining to the appeal procedure. The applicant was warned that the amount paid was insufficient and on 30 March 1995 he paid the remaining costs of the appeal procedure. 15.  On 3 May 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a suspension of the execution of the judgment of 4 December 1994. 16.  On 16 November 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The court referred to the doctrine of “social risk”, which did not require the establishment of any causal link between the harmful action and the loss, and reasoned that the damage caused by terrorism should be shared by the society as a whole in accordance with the principles of “justice” and “social state”. 17.  On 15 March 1996 the respondent requested the rectification of the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court. 18.  On 9 March 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request of the respondent. 19.  On 30 September 1998 the Istanbul Administrative Court decided to abide by the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court. 20.  On 27 November 1998 the case-file was sent to an expert. On 29 December 1998 the expert submitted its report to the Court. 21.  On 17 February 1999 the Istanbul Administrative Court awarded the applicant an amount of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage with legal interest running from 18 February 1992. 22.  On 30 April 1999 the judgment became final. 23.  On 18 September 2000 the applicant was paid the due amount of compensation.