CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 décembre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s6186A45 { width:104.38%; border-collapse:collapse } .s1533E8B1 { height:41.4pt } .s38106AA4 { width:12.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s4FA54A1 { width:17.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8B8A6215 { width:12.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4916ECFB { width:17.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6FF038A6 { width:16.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5D3EFFC6 { width:23.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7F704500 { height:39.7pt } .s8F273BB9 { width:12.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA9525B0D { margin-left:33.01pt; text-align:center; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s80E732A1 { width:17.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s81DFA6E2 { width:12.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sE578744E { width:17.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sB4E32C60 { width:16.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s9B48A2D5 { width:23.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s74925A98 { margin-left:36pt; text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 13 December 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58528/09 Muzaffer ÖRNEK and others against Turkey lodged on 17 October 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged impossibility to challenge the amount of compensation paid for expropriation of the applicant’s property. The applicants’ predecessor had owned a plot of land without any title deed. In 1963, following a cadastral survey, the land was assigned to the applicants’ predecessor considering that it had been in his actual possession for more than 20 years. The Treasury objected to the cadastral commission’s decision and brought an action for registration of the land in its name. While proceedings concerning the registration of the land were pending, the administration decided to expropriate the land to build electric transformers in 1979. The administration sent a notice of expropriation to all relevant parties, including the applicants, and in 1979, an annotation concerning expropriation was entered in the land registry records and compensation for expropriation was deposited in a bank. In 1998, the Cadastre Court ordered the registration of the plot of land in the name of the applicants. Subsequently the applicants brought compensation proceedings before the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction for de facto expropriation of their land by the administration. The court, stating that the expropriation proceedings were completed in 1979, classified the case as a request for an increase in the amount of expropriation compensation. The court rejected the applicants’ claim due to the prescription of the statutory time-limit. The applicants’ appeal and rectification requests were rejected by the Court of Cassation. Subsequently, the land in question was registered in the name of the Treasury. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 that the dismissal of their claim due to the statutory time-limit and expropriation of their land without payment of any compensation constituted a violation of their right of access to a court and their right to enjoyment of their possessions. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants? In particular, was the applicants awarded with compensation reasonably related to their property’s value (see Preite v.   Italy, no.   28976/05, § 46, 17 November 2015)? Furthermore, having regard to the fact that the applicant could not challenge the amount of the expropriation compensation determined by the administration, did the national authorities strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the applicants right to property ( Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece , no. 44769/07, §§ 36-37, 5 November 2009)? 2.     Has there been a violation of applicants’ right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants have a legal capacity to bring a case before the domestic courts against the expropriation decision in 1979? If yes, the Government is invited to provide the Court with case-law examples in this matter. ANNEXE N o . Firstname Lastname Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative   Muzaffer Örnek 1926 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı   Münire Eren 1936 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı   Cengiz Fidan 1965 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı   Emrah Fidan 1973 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı   Fatih Fidan 1971 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı   Hüseyin Fidan 1952 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı   İnci Karagöz 1955 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı   Naciye Kaya 1948 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı   Cemil Örnek 1938 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı   Muammer Örnek 1931 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı   Nadir Şen 1951 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı   Nedim Şen 1957 Turkish İzmir F. B. Adalı