CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juin 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 } Published on 21 June 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23918/18 ÇİMENLER MADENCİLİK SANAYİ VE TİCARET LİMİTED ŞİRKETİ against Turkey lodged on 5 May 2018 communicated on 2 June 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the rejection of the applicant`s request for temporary suspension of its mining operating license. The applicant company complains of a violation of its right to protection of property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention, alleging that the rejection of its suspension request led to the revocation of its license without any justification despite the explicit provisions of the relevant law and regulation and the well-established case-law of the Council of State. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Has there been a violation of this provision on account of the alleged lack of reasoning in the decision of the Council of State adopted on 28 February 2017 departing from its well-established case-law (see Atanasovski v.   “the   Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” , no. 36815/03, § 38, 14   January 2010)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention ( Gospodăria țărănească Chiper Terenti Grigore v.   the Republic of Moldova , no. 71130/13, 2 June 2020)? If so, was that interference in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law. Furthermore, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?