CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 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 2 October 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20419/07 Ramazan AYDIN against Turkey lodged on 18 April 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a series of compensation proceedings brought by the applicant against the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which de facto expropriated his land. In the first lawsuit, the court awarded the amount claimed by the applicant, but determined a higher value for the land disagreeing with the findings of the expert witnesses which it had appointed for the appraisal of the land’s value. After that decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation, the applicant, having reserved his rights to additional compensation in the first lawsuit, filed a second lawsuit claiming part of the remaining amount of the land’s value before the same court. The court ruled in his favour reiterating in the reasoning part its conclusion regarding the land’s value as appraised in the first lawsuit. Thereafter, the applicant filed a third and final lawsuit claiming the whole remaining amount. In this lawsuit, however, the court found against the applicant on the basis of the value of the land appraised by the expert witnesses in the first proceedings, rather than the higher amount established by that court during the same proceedings. It therefore held that the applicant could not claim any additional compensation. It added that the applicant, by not claiming the remaining amount in its entirety in the second lawsuit, had acted in bad faith. The applicant appealed against this decision, but to no avail. The decision became final on 22 February 2007. The applicant complains that he was denied a fair trial on account of the domestic courts’ refusal to award the remainder of his claim by taking as a basis the findings of the expert witnesses in the first lawsuit instead of the per-square meter value determined by the court in those proceedings. The applicant further claims that the Court of Cassation in its decision of 22   February 2007 rejected the applicant’s appeal without responding to the applicant’s objections. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligation in the third lawsuit, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention on account of the refusal of the domestic courts to award the applicant in the third lawsuit the amount corresponding to the remaining value of his land as appraised by the court in the first lawsuit?