CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 6 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35826/09 Yakup ÇAYAN against Turkey lodged on 10 June 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the expropriation of business premises ( işyeri ) belonging to the applicant pursuant to the Law of Expropriation. The applicant complains under Article   6 and Article   1 of Protocol No   1 to the Convention that his right to a fair trial and the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions were violated on account of the fact that the domestic courts did not take into account the clientele and commercial value of his business premises when calculating the amount of compensation. He claims that he was paid solely the building’s construction costs ( yapı maliyet bedeli ) as compensation for the expropriation. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES In the light of the Court’s case-law related to the calculation of the expropriation compensation (see, mutat mutandis , Kozacıoğlu v.   Turkey , no.   2334/03, 19   February 2019, and Preite v.   Italy , no   28976/05, 17   November 2015), has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to property within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No   1 to the Convention? In particular, was the applicant awarded with compensation reasonably related to his property’s value? If not, did it impose a disproportionate burden on the applicant?