CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2A7D9A9F { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6A1209E9 { width:153.28pt; display:inline-block } .s78030FD3 { width:35.13pt; display:inline-block } .s189CD90B { width:111.88%; border-collapse:collapse } .sE87BCA71 { width:8.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sB40A61DD { width:32.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7898AFFC { width:25.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s43D2CA1F { width:17.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s67F68943 { width:15.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB8882FFD { width:8.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE60C5E8B { width:32.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE140995B { width:25.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF05FEE { width:17.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE39BD1D5 { width:15.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11549/22 Adile Dilek GÜRSOY and Others against Türkiye lodged on 24 February 2022 communicated on 10 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the applicants’ request for restitution of a plot of land (30,000 m 2 ) the Adıyaman Municipality which was expropriated from them in 2008 to build a bus station area. The applicants claim that the Adıyaman Municipality did not use the plot in accordance with the purpose of the expropriation. They allege that the Adıyaman Municipality abandoned its purpose to build a bus station on the plot of land that was expropriated from them and decided to expropriate another plot of land to build the said bus station in 2010. The applicants submit that the Adıyaman Municipality left the plot of land unused for more than four years after the expropriation and that, just a few months before their right to reclaim the plot arose in accordance with the five-year time-limit laid down in Article 23 of Law No. 2942 on Expropriation, the municipality signed a rental contract with a company at a very low price to operate an amusement park on a small part of the plot, in order to prevent them from using their right to buy back the plot. The civil action brought by the applicants was eventually dismissed on the grounds that the plot of land was used in line with a public interest even if the purpose was different from the purpose of the expropriation. 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 conclusions reached by the Court in the cases of Motais de Narbonne v. France (no. 48161/99, §§ 16-23, 2 July 2002) and Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino (no. 40786/98, §§   30-34, ECHR   2004-VIII (extracts)), did the refusal of the applicants’ request for restitution, as regards the unused part of the plot of land, constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   2.     In the light of the conclusions reached by the Court in the cases of Motais de Narbonne v. France (no. 48161/99, §§ 16-23, 2 July 2002) and Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino (no. 40786/98, §§   30-34, ECHR   2004-VIII (extracts)), did the refusal of the applicants’ request for restitution, as regards the part of the plot of land used for the amusement park, constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   APPENDIX   List of applicants: No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Adile Dilek GÜRSOY 1969 Turkish Adıyaman 2. Ruken Ayşe DOST 1979 Turkish Adıyaman 3. Sümeyra Adile ELALDI 1977 Turkish Adıyaman 4. Yeliz ERTÜRK 1981 Turkish Adıyaman 5. Ahmet Bülent GÜRSOY 1968 Turkish Adıyaman 6. Atif GÜRSOY 1949 Turkish Adıyaman 7. Baran GÜRSOY 1979 Turkish Adıyaman 8. Hüseyin Hicri GÜRSOY 1971 Turkish Adıyaman 9. İbrahim Suat GÜRSOY 1975 Turkish Adıyaman 10. Latif GÜRSOY 1952 Turkish Antalya 11. Şeyh Abdurrahman Murat GÜRSOY 1973 Turkish Adıyaman 12. Zeliha Meral GÜRSOY 1946 Turkish Adıyaman 13. Süheyla ÖZBİLGİN 1948 Turkish Adıyaman 14. Ahmet SEVİNÇLİ 1967 Turkish Adıyaman 15. Arda SEVİNÇLİ 2002 Turkish Adıyaman 16. Ayşe Nilgün TOPRAK 1966 Turkish Adıyaman