CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 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 19 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 7429/11 Niyazi ÖZCAN against Turkey lodged on 6 December 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the 40 % reduction of the expropriation compensation on account of “contribution to planning costs” ( düzenleme ortaklık payı ). This contribution normally consists in the free transfer of up to 40 % of the plot to the authorities when a zoning plan classifying the plot as “urban plot” (imar parseli”) is adopted. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, alleging that such a deduction should not have been done from his expropriation compensation as his land was already classified as an urban plot in the zoning plan ( imar parseli ). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the deprivation of property in the present case impose an excessive and individual burden on the applicant within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the 40 per cent reduction applied to the expropriation compensation foreseen by the law? In addition, was the amount awarded to the applicant reasonably related to the value of his plot? 2.     Did the applicant repay the amount decided by the court? If so, when and how much did he pay back?