CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2019

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s12BCAB85 { width:129.6%; border-collapse:collapse } .s39ABF08C { width:9.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3EEAC05E { width:24.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s1753EDC8 { width:14.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s26C00EB3 { width:17.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4493BBF7 { width:14.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDDF59F19 { width:20.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA675756A { width:9.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s88D079E6 { width:24.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sECAEFE96 { width:14.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA4A171FA { width:17.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1D97E42E { width:14.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDA7181B3 { width:20.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3192C8A1 { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 23 January 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23591/09 Necdet CEYHAN and others against Turkey lodged on 13 April 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the partial expropriation of the applicants’ land and the compensation awarded to them by the domestic court. In 1993 part of the applicants’ land was expropriated by the administration for the construction of a telephone central building. The applicants brought a case for additional compensation, as a result of which they were awarded a certain amount of compensation in 2007. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the calculation of the compensation awarded to them for the partial expropriation of their land? In particular, did the domestic court take account of the decrease in the value in the non-expropriated part of the land? If not, did that failure to grant indemnity for the decrease in the value of the remaining estate impose a disproportionate burden on the applicants (see Ouzounoglou v.   Greece , no.   32730/03, 24 November 2005; Athanasiou and Others v.   Greece , no.   2531/02, 9 February 2006; and Bistrović v. Croatia , no.   25774/05, 31   May 2007)? LIST OF APPLICANTS No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative   Necdet CEYHAN 1950 Turkish Bandırma M.S. Gemalmaz   Alper ARISÜT 1977 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Emin ARISÜT 1981 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Emine ARISÜT 1937 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Fatma ARISÜT 1930 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Hüseyin ARISÜT 1962 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Kerim ARISÜT 1944 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Meltem ARISÜT 1983 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Sedat ARISÜT 1959 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Vedat ARISÜT 1962 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Ayşe CEYHAN 1953 Turkish Bandırma M.S. Gemalmaz   Neriman CEYHAN 1944 Turkish Bandırma M.S. Gemalmaz   Ayşe GEÇİM 1965 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Aysel KINSUN 1949 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Nebiha YAVUZYILMAZ 1949 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz   Nevzat ARISÜT 1950 Turkish Istanbul M.S. Gemalmaz