CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 novembre 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 }   Communicated on 5 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 32940/09 Muhittin Ziya TURHAN and Aziz KORKMAZ against Turkey lodged on 28 April 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the loss of value of the applicants’ property due to the construction of high-rise buildings on the neighbouring parcel despite a court decision annulling the relevant zoning plan. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, was that interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants, on account of the construction of buildings blocking the view of their property despite the annulment of the urban plan allowing for their construction?   2.     Have all the legal requirements of the judgment of the Bursa Administrative Court (file no.   1996/832E and   1997/1096K), which revoked the zoning plan enabling the construction of high-rise buildings on the parcel next to the applicants’, been fulfilled by the administrative authorities? If not, does the non-enforcement of the respective judgment give rise to a breach of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Çakır and Others v.   Turkey , no.   25747/09, 4 June 2013)?   3.     Has the above-mentioned judgment of the Bursa Administrative Court been fully executed? If not, has its non-execution constituted a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Taşkın and Others v.   Turkey , no.   46117/99, ECHR 2004 ‑ X , and Okyay and Others v.   Turkey , no.   36220/97, ECHR 2005 ‑ VII)?