CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 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 23 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 67713/12 Dursun SATICI against Turkey lodged on 31 August 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Turkish national and a resident in the town of Göynük, Kemer-Antalya, a seaside holiday destination. The application concerns the applicant’s constitutional right to enjoy free access to the coastline and the alleged failure of the national authorities to enforce domestic court judgments ordering the demolition of illegal constructions on beaches which were found to prevent the public’s access to the shoreline. The applicant maintains that not having access to the seashore in the town he resides substantially affects the quality of his life. On 25 February 2015 the Constitutional Court declared, by three votes to two, the applicant’s individual application inadmissible holding that the right in question was not “civil” within the meaning of the Convention. The applicant complains that the national authorities failed to discharge their obligations under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of domestic court decisions. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb applicable to the proceedings in question? If so, has there been a violation of that Article on account of the non-enforcement of administrative court decisions in the applicant’s favour (see Kyrtatos v. Greece , no. 41666/98, §§   30-32, ECHR   2003 ‑ VI (extracts); Taşkın and Others v. Turkey , no.   46117/99, §§   127-138, ECHR 2004‑X and Okyay and Others v. Turkey , no.   36220/97, §§   70-75, ECHR   2005‑VII)?   2.     Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable in the present case? In particular does the national authorities’ failure to put a stop to the impugned third-party practices interfere with the applicant’s right to respect for private life?