CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2018

.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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   Communicated on 18 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 28310/11 İsmail KABAKÇI and Fatma KABAKÇI against Turkey lodged on 14 February 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicants’ inability to use their land as a result of the designation of the property as a restricted military zone despite a previous zoning plan indicating that the property was available for construction. The case brought by the applicants, whereby they had claimed compensation for de facto expropriation, was dismissed by the domestic court. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, arguing that the interference constituted de facto expropriation of their land as the authorities refused to give them a construction permit and failed to pay compensation to cover their losses. They also complain that they were denied a fair hearing in violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention due to contradictory decisions handed down by the Court of Cassation on identical cases, contrary to its previously established practice QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 on account of the designation of their land as a “restricted military zone”? Did the decision to designate the land as a restricted military zone in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided by law? In that connection, what was the reason for the conversion of that designation from 1 st degree restricted military zone to 2 nd degree? Moreover, were similar restrictions applied for the neighbouring parcels?   Did the interference at issue impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants, taking account of the lack of an expropriation decision and any compensation for the damages stemming from the restrictions imposed on their property?   2.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were there “profound and long-standing differences” in the case-law of the Court of Cassation (see Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 23530/02, 2 July 2009, and Nejdet Şahin and   Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, 20 October 2011)?   The parties are invited to provide the Court with an expert report, preferably judicial, on the alleged damage caused to the applicants by the impugned interference. The report should point out all the objective criteria it relies on in reaching its conclusions.