CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 August 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 33179/18 Halit SERTDEMİR and Ahmet SERTDEMİR against Türkiye lodged on 28 June 2018 communicated on 10 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns   an allegedly disproportionate interference with the property rights of the applicants on account of the annulment without compensation of their titles to plots of land. They had acquired these plots of land from a private third party based on fraudulent yet official documents delivered by a civil servant working in the civil registry office. The applicants complain of the lack of any compensation and allege a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in conformity with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? In particular, in view of the Court’s relevant case-law ( Gladysheva v. Russia , no. 7097/10, §§ 64-83, 6 December 2011; Semenov v. Russia , no. 17254/15, §§ 59-72, 16 March 2021; Vukušić v.   Croatia, no. 69735/11, §§ 60-70, 31 May 2016; Beinarovič and Others v.   Lithuania, nos. 70520/10 , 21920/10 and 41876/11, §§ 138-164 , 12   June 2018; and Belova v. Russia , no. 33955/08, §§ 32-45, 15 September 2020), did the interference strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicants within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Within this framework, did the applicants act as bona fide buyers   ?