CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10AB3CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#222222 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } Communicated on 2 October 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43186/17 Ünal ÇAKAR against Turkey and 26 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the judicial practice, in the context of expropriation proceedings, to order both parties to pay a lump sum to the opposing party in respect of lawyer fees. The applicants complain that such an order decreased the expropriation indemnity awarded to them. They argue that they have no responsibility for the initiation of the proceedings, as the courts ruled in their favour and decided to increase the amounts initially proposed by the expropriating public authority. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions? In particular, did the fact that the applicants were ordered to pay attorney fees to the expropriating public authority constitute an excessive burden which upset the fair balance which must be struck between the general interest of the community and the fundamental rights of the individual (see Musa Tarhan v. Turkey, no.12055/17, 23   October 2018)? APPENDIX 1. 43186/17 Çakar 2. 43202/17 Tekdamar 3. 56259/17 Ekiz 4. 56261/17 Gültekin 5. 57246/17 İzmir 6. 57267/17 Ballıca 7. 57271/17 Karakuş 8. 58207/17 Ölmez and Others 9. 58353/17 Yanar 10. 63953/17 Demirörs 11. 63966/17 Çakar 12. 63974/17 Fesli 13. 64527/17 Kodaş 14. 64699/17 Ardıç 15. 64745/17 Yanar 16. 68426/17 Zengin 17. 78161/17 Karataş 18. 82327/17 Kiraz 19. 3052/18 Alıcı 20. 3095/18 Sarı and Others 21. 3116/18 Söğüt 22. 10531/18 Fesli and Ardıç 23. 26076/18 Ada 24. 34055/18 Yazgan 25. 34086/18 Bozkurt 26. 57921/18 Sayar 27. 5628/19 Selvidağ