CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 22 February 2021 Published on 15 March 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30124/18 Fercihan SEVİNÇ against Turkey lodged on 14 June 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application essentially concerns a judicial practice of the civil courts, in the context of expropriation proceedings, to order the parties to pay a lump sum to the opposing party in respect of legal fees. As regards the order to pay legal fees to the opposing party, namely the administration, the applicant complains that such an order decreased the expropriation indemnity awarded to him notwithstanding the fact that he had no responsibility in the initiation of proceedings regarding the determination of the expropriation compensation. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, the applicant complains of a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   In particular, in the light of the Court’s findings in the cases of Musa Tarhan v.   Turkey (no.   12055/17 , 23 October 2018), did the applicant suffer an excessive individual burden?