4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Şırnak. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 11 February 1994 the applicant's stores and goods were burned and destroyed in the course of an armed clash between members of the State Security Forces and militants from the PKK (the Workers' Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation), in the Silopi district of the province of Şırnak. 7.  On 14 February 1994 the applicant filed a declaratory action before the Silopi Magistrates' Court for an assessment of the damage he had suffered as a result of the clash and the fire. 8.  On the same day the Silopi Magistrates' Court appointed an expert to determine the damage. 9.  On 16 February 1994 the expert submitted a damage assessment report to the court. The expert noted in his report that his conclusions were based on the applicant's claims since the receipts for some of the goods had been burned as a result of the fire. 10.  On 26 December 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court against the Ministry of Interior and requested compensation for the damage he had suffered. 11.  On 30 December 1994 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court dismissed the action on the ground that the applicant had failed to apply to the Ministry of the Interior with his claim. The court reasoned that, under Article 13 of Law no. 2577, an action of this kind could be filed only after the administrative authorities had refused the litigant's request.
b)  Second set of proceedings 12.  On 1 February 1995 the Ministry of the Interior received the case file from the Diyarbakır Administrative Court. The Ministry did not respond to the applicant's request for compensation within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577. 13.  On 3 April 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court and requested compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the destruction of his stores. 14.  On 7 May 1998 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court awarded the applicant compensation based on his annual tax return in 1993. It held that the expert report on the applicant's damage should not be taken into consideration since the assessment of the damage was based on the applicant's claims alone. 15.  On 19 August 1998 the applicant appealed. 16.  On 10 April 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Diyarbakır Administrative Court's judgment. It held that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the damage sustained by the applicant as it had disregarded the damage to the goods in the stores. 17.  In a judgment dated 16 June 2005, the Diyarbakır Administrative Court, complying with the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling, partially acceded to the applicant's request for compensation. The applicant appealed against this judgment as well and, according to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.