CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 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 29 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10796/08 Mehmet KESKİN against Turkey lodged on 24 December 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the accidental demolition of the applicant’s property by a private contractor, which had undertaken to demolish the damaged buildings following the earthquake of 17 August 1999, and the compensation awarded to him by the Sakarya Administrative Court for his damages. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as regards the rate and starting date of the interest applied to the compensation awarded to the applicant? In particular, was the default statutory interest rate sufficient vis-à-vis the monetary inflation rates during the given period (see Okçu v. Turkey , no. 39515/03, 21 July 2009, and Zeytinli v. Turkey , no. 42952/04, 26 January 2010)?