CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sDDB95A76 { width:140.25pt; display:inline-block } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sE0742E96 { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s87D2D607 { width:30.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s31590799 { width:15.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDEA4600A { width:21.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s86B2BD76 { width:24.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2362A5F { width:30.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF94473E2 { width:15.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCCD9B22E { width:21.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB871DC3C { width:24.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 30 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 55248/21 Özkan DALYAN and Others against Türkiye lodged on 26 October 2021 communicated on 11 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal to restitute to the applicants plots of lands they previously donated to the administration and the sale of the land to private third parties. The applicants donated unconditionally and free of charge their plots of land which were already reserved for public service (road, parking area, green space, health care area, etc.) in the zoning plans but were not expropriated. The applicants claim that they were forced by the administration to make this donation while they assumed that the land would be used in accordance with the purposes specified in the zoning plans at the relevant time. The plots of land were later sold to third parties by the administration following amendments made in the zoning plans. The civil proceedings brought by the applicants for the annulment of the donation and compensation was dismissed on the grounds that the donation had been made unconditionally. The domestic court also pointed out that when the applicants donated their plots of land, the administration changed zoning plans and granted high-rise construction rights in respect of the applicants’ other plots of lands. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the cases of Karaman v. Turkey (no. 6489/03, §§ 24 ss., 15   January 2008) and Sağlık İnşaat Turizm Sanayi Taahhüt ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 55549/11, §§ 34 ss., 7 April 2015), has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as the applicants alleged that the plots of land they donated had not been used for public interest purposes by the municipality? If so,   i.     Was this interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law? ii.     Did such interference strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individuals’ fundamental rights? iii.     In the light of the Court’s findings in the Karaman judgment (cited above, §§ 30 ss.), did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?   2.     What is the current use of the plots of land?   3.     Considering the applicants’ claim that they believed the plots of land would be used in accordance with the public service purposes specified in the zoning plans when they made the donations, could this donation be considered as conditional as the applicants argue? APPENDIX List of applicants: No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Özkan DALYAN 1963 Turkish Samsun 2. İnci AYDOĞAN 1965 Turkish Samsun 3. Yasemin ÇELİK 1979 Turkish Samsun 4. Aşur DALYAN 1968 Turkish Samsun 5. Bayram DALYAN 1968 Turkish Samsun 6. Caner DALYAN 1993 Turkish Samsun 7. Cengiz DALYAN 1962 Turkish Samsun 8. Ceyhun DALYAN 1998 Turkish Samsun 9. Dursune DALYAN 1945 Turkish Samsun 10. Galip DALYAN 1966 Turkish Samsun 11. Güliz DALYAN 1973 Turkish Samsun 12. Hatice DALYAN 1973 Turkish Samsun 13. Necla DALYAN 1951 Turkish Samsun 14. Nimet DALYAN 1971 Turkish Samsun 15. Tarık DALYAN 1981 Turkish Samsun 16. Yaşar DALYAN 1973 Turkish Samsun 17. Zekiye DALYAN 1971 Turkish Samsun 18. Ülker DALYAN EROL 1967 Turkish Samsun 19. Münevver DUMAN 1964 Turkish Samsun 20. Emine ERASLAN 1976 Turkish Samsun 21. Makbule ERASLAN 1976 Turkish Samsun 22. Ünzüle KABADAYI 1965 Turkish Samsun 23. Kerime KIZKAYA 1963 Turkish Samsun 24. Mükerrem KOÇ 1962 Turkish Samsun 25. Güldeniz OCAK 1969 Turkish Samsun 26. Sevinç ÖZTÜRK 1976 Turkish Tokat 27. Ülkü SOYLU 1965 Turkish Samsun 28. Davut YILDIRIM 1973 Turkish Samsun