CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 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 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 11 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no.   4444/22 Menderes TİTİZ and Mustafa TİTİZ against Türkiye and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 24 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the depreciation of the compensation awarded to the applicants by the domestic courts. The applicants’ plots of land were de facto expropriated by the administration between 1960 and 1978. In 2014, the applicants brought claims before the relevant first-instance courts, seeking compensation for the amount of rent they would have received if their plots had not been subject to de facto expropriation ( ecrimisil davası ), as well as expropriation compensation for the plots of land. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they suffered a financial loss as the compensation awarded was depreciated due to the monetary inflation during the relevant period. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been 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, due to the depreciation of the compensation awarded to the applicants (see Aka v. Turkey , 23 September 1998, §§ 41-50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, and Yetiş and Others v.   Turkey , no.   40349/05, §§ 43 et suiv., 6 July 2010)? The parties are invited to provide the Court with copies of all the relevant documents showing the total amount of payments made to the applicants for each separate application, as well as the total amount of the interest paid and the calculation method of the latter. APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Introduction date 1. 4444/22 Menderes TİTİZ 1954 Mersin Turkish Mustafa TİTİZ 1992 Mersin Turkish 06/01/2022 2. 4581/22 İbrahim TİTİZ 1990 Mersin Turkish 06/01/2022 3. 9516/22 Mahmut Cem SOYSAL 1979 Mersin Turkish Miyase DARENDEOĞLU 1984 Mersin Turkish Hatice SOYSAL 1956 Mersin Turkish Nedim SOYSAL 1977 Mersin Turkish 04/02/2022