CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 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 }   Communicated on 29 January 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 55238/12 Hüseyin TUNCEL against Turkey lodged on 13 June 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the damage caused to the applicant’s tractor during a river flood and the domestic court’s dismissal of his compensation claim on the grounds that the administration did not bear any responsibility for the incident. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, arguing that the flood was caused by the State authorities’ failure to comply with their positive obligations in that they had allowed for construction on the river channel. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the domestic authorities’ refusal to award him compensation for the damage caused to his tractor? In particular, did the authorities discharge their positive obligation to protect the applicant’s right secured by Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no.   48939/99, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII, and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia , nos.   17423/05 and 5 others, 28 February 2012)?   The Government are requested to submit information concerning the legislative and administrative framework for dealing with natural hazards, in particular floods, and to comment on whether these were effectively implemented in the present case.