CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 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 10 December 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37379/05 İsa SİRKECİ against Turkey lodged on 27 September 2005 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the expropriation of two plots of land of which the applicant was one of their shareholders. In 2005 the applicant brought an administrative action before the relevant administrative court, seeking compensation for the alleged expropriation and pecuniary damage. In 2012 the administrative court ordered the expropriation compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate, to be paid to the applicant, yet rejected the applicant’s additional compensation claim.   Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to respect for his property has been infringed. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the deprivation of property in the present case impose an excessive and individual burden on the applicant? In particular, was the amount awarded to the applicant as expropriation compensation adequate? (see, mutatis mutandis, Akkuş v. Turkey , 9 July 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV, and Aka v. Turkey , 23 September 1998, Reports 1998 ‑ VI)?