CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD551674B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:18pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97C4337 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s38729B7C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAAD7ECD0 { width:5.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s8FBB5171 { width:17.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sCFE21915 { width:130.42pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } SECOND SECTION CASE OF EROL AKSOY v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 58919/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 (civil) • Non-enforcement of Supreme Administrative Court judgments annulling decisions related to the valuation, tender invitation and subsequent sale of a television channel and radio station (Viva TV-Radio Viva) owned by joint-stock companies in which the applicant held shares • Failure to enforce judgments directly and personally affected the applicant’s right to the procedural safeguards guaranteed in the determination of his civil rights and obligations • Art   6 applicable • Victim status • Inaction of the Saving Deposit Insurance Fund, which managed and controlled Viva TV-Radio Viva for debt recovery purposes, to enforce relevant judgments, effectively deprived the applicant of his right of access to a court Art 1 P1 • Art 34 • Art 35 § 3 a) • Ratione personae • Lack of victim status • Non-enforcement of Supreme Administrative Court judgments did not directly affect the applicant’s shareholder rights • Application lodged by applicant in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the joint stock companies concerned by the acts complained of • Applicant’s direct shareholding in the companies either minimal or not disclosed   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 10 February 2026   Request for referral to the Grand Chamber pending   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Erol Aksoy v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Jovan Ilievski,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   58919/18) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Erol Aksoy (“the applicant”), on 5 December 2018; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article   6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the non-enforcement of judgments delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court following proceedings initiated by the applicant to annul decisions related to the valuation, tender invitation and subsequent sale of a television channel and radio station owned by joint-stock companies in which the applicant held shares. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, he complained that the national authorities had failed to comply with the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgments rendered in his favour in those proceedings. THE FACTS         THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 2.     The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented by Ms N. Holliger, a lawyer practising in Paris. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr   Hacı   Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.    Background to the case 5.     On 19 February 2001, the Turkish government declared a state of economic crisis. 6.     By a decision dated 15 March 2001, the Banking Regulation and Supervision Board ( Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu , hereinafter “the Board”) resolved to transfer the management and control of İktisat Bankası T.A.Ş. (hereinafter “İktisat Bank” or “the Bank”) to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund ( Tasarruf Mevduat Sigorta Fonu , hereinafter “the Fund”), pursuant to section 14(3) of the Banking Activities Act (Law no.   4389). The Board, in its decision, observed that the Bank’s assets were insufficient to meet its liabilities and that its continued operation posed a threat to the rights of its creditors as well as to the security and stability of the financial system. It further noted that the Bank’s managers had failed to implement the necessary remedial measures and had instead transferred the Bank’s assets to companies under their control. Consequently, the Bank’s management and control, as well as the privileges of its shareholders, except for the entitlement to dividends, were transferred to the Fund. 7.     Prior to the transfer, the applicant owned 61.8% of the shares in Avrupa ve Amerika Holding A.Ş., which in turn held 95.19% of the shares in the Bank. Additionally, the applicant personally held 1.01% of the Bank’s shares. The applicant also served as the managing director of the Bank’s board of directors. A total of 37.76% of the shares in Avrupa ve Amerika Holding A.Ş. were held by other members of the Aksoy family. Accordingly,   99.6% of the shares in Avrupa ve Amerika Holding A. Ş. were owned by the applicant and his family. 8.     Following the transfer of İktisat Bank to the Fund, the auditors of the Board determined that its former shareholders, including Avrupa ve Amerika Holding A.Ş., Erol Aksoy and other members of the Aksoy family, had misappropriated the Bank’s resources for personal benefit. As a result, on 14   September 2001, the Fund resolved to recover 726,122,000 Turkish liras from the former shareholders by taking all necessary measures, including relying on the provisions of Law no. 6183 on the Collection of Debts Due to the State and imposing injunctions. 9.     On 9 May 2006, a debt liquidation protocol ( Borç Tasfiye Protokolü , hereinafter referred to as “the Liquidation Protocol”) was signed between the Fund (as creditor) and the Erol Aksoy Group (as debtor). The applicant personally signed the Liquidation Protocol as one of the debtors. 10.     The debtors under the Erol Aksoy Group, as set out in the Liquidation Protocol, included, among others, Erol Aksoy personally, Avrupa ve Amerika Holding A.Ş., members of the Aksoy family who were shareholders in the latter, Cinebeş Filmcilik ve Yapımcılık A.Ş., Cine Dijital İletişim Hizmetleri Ticaret A.Ş., Kutyay Özel Radyo Televizyon Yayıncılık A.Ş., Spor ve Çocuk Televizyon Reklamcılık ve Yapımcılık A.Ş., Erdem Radyo Televizyon Yayıncılığı ve Reklamcılık A.Ş., Multikanal Dağıtım ve Ticaret A.Ş., Aks Radyo ve Yayıncılık Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., Medya İletişim Hizmetleri Sanayi A.Ş., and Anadolu Radyo ve Görüntü Hizmetleri A. Ş. 11.     According to Section 2 of the Liquidation Protocol, its subject and purpose are defined as the establishment of the principles and procedures for the repayment – by debtors and jointly and severally liable co-debtors – of debts that have been or will be transferred to the Fund. These debts arise from loans obtained from banks taken over by the Fund, as well as from other liabilities specified in the Liquidation Protocol and incurred by the individuals and legal entities identified as debtors. 12 .     Under the terms of the Liquidation Protocol, the debtors undertook joint and several liability for all present and future debts and their ancillary obligations. Section 9 of the Liquidation Protocol set out the conditions for default, specifying that in the event of a default by any of the joint debtors, all other debtors would be deemed to have defaulted as well. 13.     On 3 April 2008, the Fund concluded that the Erol Aksoy Group had failed to fulfil several commitments and obligations set out in the Liquidation Protocol, rendering the Protocol no longer effective for the recovery of public receivables. Consequently, the Fund decided to rely on its provisions concerning default. It resolved to initiate legal proceedings against all natural and legal person debtors within the Erol Aksoy Group and to proceed with the sale of assets, including those consolidated as an economic and commercial unit. 14.     On 18 September 2008, the Fund further resolved to transfer the management and control of all companies within the Erol Aksoy Group to itself, along with the rights of their shareholders, except for the entitlement to dividends.    Sale of Viva TV and Radio Viva Economic and Commercial Unit 15 .     Certain companies within the Erol Aksoy Group, identified as debtors under the Liquidation Protocol, owned Viva TV, a television channel, and Radio Viva, a radio station. In their submissions the Government presented the shareholder information of four out of the nine companies owning Viva TV and Radio Viva, namely: Kutyay Özel Radyo Televizyon Yayıncılık A.Ş., Erdem Radyo Televizyon Yayıncılığı ve Reklamcılık A.Ş., Medya İletişim Hizmetleri Sanayi A.Ş., and Anadolu Radyo ve Görüntü Hizmetleri A.Ş. The shareholding structures, as presented in the tables provided by the Government, are as follows: 1- Kutyay Özel Radyo Televizyon ve Yayıncılık A.Ş. Name (Company or Individual) Paid-up Capital (TRY) Shareholding Ratio (%) Multikanal Dağıtım ve Ticaret A.Ş. 140,000.00 58.33% MSM Mali Sistemleri Müşavirlik A.Ş. 39,666.66 16.53% C.S. 1,000.00 0.42% Avrupa ve Amerika Holding A.Ş. 59,333.34 24.72% Total 240,000.00 100.00%   2- Erdem Radyo Televizyon Yayıncılığı ve Reklamcılık A.Ş. Name (Company or Individual) Paid-up Capital (TRY) Shareholding Ratio (%) Erol Aksoy 1,300.00 0.62% Anadolu Radyo ve Görsel Hizmetler A.Ş. 154,100.00 73.38% Cine Müzik TV Radyo Yayın Yapım A.Ş. 7,150.00 3.40% Avrupa ve Amerika Holding A.Ş. 47,450.00 22.60% Total 210,000.00 100.00%   3- Medya İletişim Hizmetleri San. ve Tic. AŞ Name (Company or Individual) Paid-up Capital (TRY) Shareholding Ratio (%) A. K. 838,387.50 95.82% C. S. 2,750.00 0.31% Cine Müzik TV Radyo Yayın Yapım A.Ş. 5,500.00 0.63% Avrupa ve Amerika Holding A.Ş. 28,362.50 3.24% Total 875,000.00 100.00%   4- Anadolu Radyo ve Görüntü Hizmetleri A.Ş. Name (Company or Individual) Declared Capital (TRY) Unpaid Capital (TRY) Paid-up Capital (TRY)   Shareholding Ratio (%) Medya İletişim Hizmetleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. 2,022,500.00 1,575,000.00 447,500.00 82.55% Cine Müzik TV Radyo Yayın Yapım A.Ş. 11,000.00   11,000.00 0.45% C. S. 16,500.00   16,500.00 0.67% Avrupa ve Amerika Holding A.Ş. 400,000.00   400,000.00 16.33% Total 2,450,000.00 1,575,000.00 875,000.00 100.00%   16 .     On 19 July 2007, the Fund decided to establish two economic and commercial units: one for Viva TV and the other for Radio Viva. 17 .     With respect to Viva TV, the Fund resolved to consolidate all seized assets, rights, properties and associated components, such as contracts and the rights arising therefrom, belonging to debtor companies within the Erol Aksoy Group and effectively used by Viva TV into a single economic and commercial unit. This consolidation encompassed the following companies: Cinebeş Filmcilik ve Yapımcılık A.Ş., Cine Dijital İletişim Hizmetleri Ticaret A.Ş., Kutyay Özel Radyo Televizyon Yayıncılık A.Ş., Spor ve Çocuk Televizyon Reklamcılık ve Yapımcılık A.Ş., Erdem Radyo Televizyon Yayıncılığı ve Reklamcılık A.Ş., and Multikanal Dağıtım ve Ticaret A.Ş. 18 .     A similar resolution was adopted regarding Radio Viva. The Fund decided that the seized assets, rights, properties and associated components utilised by Radio Viva, including contracts and the rights arising therefrom, would also be consolidated into a single economic and commercial unit. This consolidation included the following companies: Aks Radyo ve Yayıncılık Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., Medya İletişim Hizmetleri Sanayi A.Ş., Anadolu Radyo ve Görüntü Hizmetleri A.Ş., and Erdem Radyo Televizyon Yayıncılığı ve Reklamcılık A.Ş. 19.     On 1 August 2007, the Industrial Development Bank of Türkiye ( Türkiye Sınaî Kalkınma Bankası A.Ş ., hereinafter referred to as “TSKB”) issued a report and determined that the value of the Radio Viva Economic and Commercial Unit (hereinafter referred to as “Radio Viva”) was 4,258,000 United States dollars (USD), while the value of the Viva TV Economic and Commercial Unit (hereinafter referred to as “Viva TV”) was USD   373,400. 20.     On 29 August 2007, the Fund resolved to offer both Viva TV and Radio Viva for sale together in a single tendering process, setting a reserve price of USD 8,000,000. However, as no bids were received, the tendering process could not proceed. 21.     On 30 June 2009, a valuation report issued by TSKB determined that the value of Radio Viva was USD 5,782,000 and the value of Viva TV was USD   132,000. 22.     On 9 July 2009, the Fund decided to merge the two economic and commercial units, thereby creating the Viva TV-Radio Viva Economic and Commercial Unit (hereinafter referred to as “Viva TV-Radio Viva”). 23.     On 5 November 2009, the Fund resolved to offer Viva TV-Radio Viva for sale, establishing a reserve price of USD 6,000,000. Although a company, P. A.Ş., obtained the tender documents with the intention of submitting a bid, the tendering process was subsequently postponed. 24.     On 13 January 2011, the Fund decided to offer Viva TV-Radio Viva for sale again, setting the reserve price at USD 6,000,000. Three companies acquired the tender documents. However, only company A. participated in the auction held on 8 February 2011. Company A. initially submitted a bid of USD   3,750,000, after which the tendering process proceeded to the next stage of open bidding. Company A. then increased its offer to USD 4,150,000. As this bid was below the estimated value, 10 February 2011 the Fund decided to continue the tendering process through negotiation. On 11   February 2011, during the negotiation phase, company A. raised its bid to USD   5,000,000. As a result, Viva TV-Radio Viva was awarded to company A. 25.     Following the notification of the outcome of the tendering process to the Radio and Television Supreme Council and the Competition Authority, on 3 May 2012, the Fund approved the award of Viva TV-Radio Viva to company A. for the price of USD 5,000,000. 26.     On 9 May 2012, company A. deposited the tender amount into the Fund’s bank account. On the same day, the parties signed the “Agreement on Takeover of Viva TV-Radio Viva” and the Fund transferred the ownership of Viva TV-Radio Viva to company A.    First set of proceedings: the applicant’s challenge to the Fund’s valuation decision of 13 January 2011 27 .     On 7 February 2011, the applicant initiated proceedings before the administrative court, contesting the actions of the Fund concerning the tendering of Viva TV-Radio Viva, in which he claimed to hold both direct and indirect shares. He alleged that the Fund had proceeded with the sale without providing him with prior notification and that he had only learned of the sale upon its publication in the Official Gazette. The applicant sought the annulment of all measures related to the sale, including the Fund’s decision of 13 January 2011, which approved the invitation to tender and the terms of sale and set the estimated value of Viva TV-Radio Viva at USD   6,000,000. He additionally requested a stay of execution of the Fund’s decision, arguing that the actual value of Viva TV-Radio Viva substantially exceeded the valuation determined by the Fund. The applicant asserted that, as a signatory to the Liquidation Protocol agreed with the Fund and as a personal guarantor of the debt underlying the contested sale, he possessed a direct and legitimate legal interest in initiating the proceedings. He further emphasised that the Fund had assumed and continued to exercise management and control over companies owned by him. To support his claim, the applicant referred to a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court in 2006, which had recognised his standing in a case involving a property owned by his company (see paragraph 44 below). 28.     On 9 December 2014, the 13th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case. The judgment was delivered by a majority, with one judge dissenting. In the dissenting opinion, the judge observed that an appraisal report prepared by experts on 30   June 2009 had valued the entity at USD 5,914,000. The judge noted that, although approximately eighteen months had passed since the report, the Fund had set the estimated value at USD 6,000,000 without obtaining an updated valuation to reflect the prevailing economic conditions. The judge considered this to be unlawful and concluded that the decision should have been annulled. 29 .     On 7 July 2015, following an appeal by the applicant, the General Assembly of the Administrative Proceedings Divisions of the Supreme Administrative Court ( Danıştay İdari Dava Daireleri Genel Kurulu –   hereinafter “the General Assembly”), in line with the dissenting opinion, ruled that the estimated value of USD 6,000,000 had been determined on the basis of the 2009 valuation report, without any new assessment of the market value. The General Assembly concluded that the contested decision was not in compliance with the law, and, by a majority, annulled the Fund’s decision. 30.     On 25 January 2016, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the Fund’s request for rectification, noting that the case had become final following the appeal and was no longer subject to rectification. 31 .     In a letter dated 23 March 2016, the applicant communicated with the Fund, requesting the enforcement of the annulment judgment. He asserted that, prior to the auction date, on 7 February 2011, he had published a public notice in the economy section of the national newspaper, Hürriyet , informing the public of his initiation of legal proceedings concerning the enforcement of the default provisions under the Liquidation Protocol signed with the Fund and the Fund’s decision to assume management and control of his companies following the commencement of the default process. The applicant further stated that, in the notice issued before the finalisation of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment, he had clearly expressed his intention to challenge the sale transactions. Moreover, the applicant indicated that, prior to the negotiation phase of the tendering process, he had sent identical notifications to both the buyer company, company A., and its owners on 7   and 9   February 2011, respectively. The applicant attached those documents, emphasising that the buyer had been made aware of the possibility of a lawsuit to annul the sale prior to participating in the auction and negotiations. The applicant contended that, in line with well-established case-law, as affirmed by the Court of Cassation, the buyer and its representatives could not be considered bona fide third parties. 32 .     On 18 April 2016, the Fund notified the applicant of a decision taken on 27 October 2015 regarding the impossibility of enforcing the judgment. The Fund clarified that, at the time of the invitation to tender and subsequent process, there had been no injunction, stay of execution or any other court order preventing the process. The tendering process had proceeded with the necessary approvals from the relevant authorities. The Fund further explained that the tender amount had been collected and Viva TV-Radio Viva had been transferred to the bona fide successful bidder. The funds obtained had been used to settle outstanding debts with certain creditors, and, since then, the Fund no longer exercised control over the asset in question. In the light of these circumstances, the Fund concluded that the enforcement of the annulment decision was not practicable, as rescinding the tendering would not restore the prior legal and factual status and would infringe the acquired rights of the successful bidder. Therefore, the Fund determined that the annulment decision could not be enforced, in terms of both legality and practicality.    Second set of proceedings: the applicant’s challenge to annul the sale of Viva TV-Radio Viva 33.     On 24 February 2011, the applicant initiated proceedings before the administrative court, seeking the annulment of the sale of Viva TV-Radio Viva. He argued that, having personally taken responsibility under the Liquidation Protocol signed with the Fund, and given that the sale in question aimed at recovering the debt arising from that Protocol, he had a direct and legitimate legal interest in pursuing the action. Furthermore, the applicant emphasised that the Fund had assumed control over his companies which owned Viva TV-Radio Viva, including management and supervisory rights, reinforcing his legal standing in the matter. 34.     The applicant also claimed that Viva TV-Radio Viva had been sold at a significantly undervalued price and that the sale had been conducted through negotiations with just one company. He alleged that these circumstances had caused substantial harm to both the public interest and his personal interests. Accordingly, the applicant sought the annulment of the impugned act and requested a stay of execution pending the outcome of the proceedings. 35.     On 19 March 2014, the 6th Chamber of the İstanbul Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, concluding that no legal irregularities had occurred in the tendering and sale procedures. On an appeal by the applicant, the 13th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld that decision on 9 December 2014. However, two dissenting judges raised concerns in a separate opinion, highlighting deficiencies in the valuation process. 36.     The dissenting judges observed that, despite the passage of nearly one and a half years since the valuation report dated 30 June 2009, the Fund had set the estimated value at USD 6,000,000 solely on the basis of that outdated report. They noted that the report had failed to take into account prevailing economic conditions at the time of the sale. They concluded that it was unlawful to determine the estimated value without conducting an updated market assessment, and to proceed with the sale based on this figure. 37 .     Following this decision, the applicant lodged a request for rectification. On 30 June 2017, the 13 th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court granted the request, referring to the ruling of the General Assembly of 7 July 2015 which had annulled the Fund’s decision of 13   January 2011 concerning the valuation of Viva TV-Radio Viva (see paragraph 29 above). The court held that the annulment in that judgment necessitated a fresh judicial review of the case. 38.     The court further emphasised that, since the Fund’s decision of 13   January 2011 had been definitively annulled, all actions based on that decision had been rendered legally invalid. As a result, the court overturned the judgment of the 6th Chamber of the Istanbul Administrative Court dated 19   March 2014 and annulled the sale in question. 39 .     In a letter dated 7 August 2017, the applicant requested the Fund to enforce the annulment judgment. Consistent with his previous request (see paragraph   31 above), he stated that, on 7 February 2011, prior to the auction, he had published an announcement in Hürriyet , notifying the public of his legal actions concerning the default provisions and the Fund’s assumption of management and control over his companies, and expressing his intention to challenge the sale transactions. He also referenced the notices he had sent to the buyer company and its owners on 7 and 9 February 2011 respectively. The applicant reiterated that the buyer and its owners had been made aware, prior to the auction and negotiations, of the possibility that a lawsuit might annul the sale, asserting that they could not be considered bona fide third parties. 40 .     On 5 September 2017, the Fund responded, stating that a decision had already been made on 11 August 2017 regarding the enforcement of the relevant judgment. The Fund reiterated the same reasons it had previously cited in its earlier response for not enforcing the court’s decision, emphasising that the annulment decision could not be enforced due to legal and practical impossibilities (see paragraph 32 above).     The individual application before the Constitutional Court 41.     On 11 September 2017, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, alleging violations of his right to property and his right to a fair trial due to the non-enforcement of the final judgment annulling the sale of Viva TV-Radio Viva. 42.     In a decision of 23 May 2018, the Constitutional Court observed that the final annulment judgment of the 13th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court had been served on the applicant on 28 July 2017 and determined that the thirty-day time-limit for lodging an individual application had commenced on that date. Noting that the applicant’s application had been submitted on 11 September 2017, after the expiry of the time-limit, the Constitutional Court declared the application inadmissible. The decision was served on the applicant on 7 June 2018.       RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE    Relevant domestic law 43.     A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Süzer and Eksen Holding A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 6334/05, §§ 65-76, 23 October 2012), Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş. and Cıngıllıoğlu v. Turkey (nos. 31833/06 and 37538/06, § 19, 21 July 2015) and Karahasanoğlu v. Turkey (nos.   21392/08 and 2 others, §§ 85-90, 16 March 2021 ).    Relevant practice of the domestic courts 44 .     The applicant provided the Court with the following case-law examples with respect to domestic courts’ practices in relation to the similar issues raised in the present case.      The Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 20 July 2006 (the case of Erol Aksoy v. the Fund (E. 2006/1242, K.2006/3060)) 45.     This case concerned the applicant’s standing in the context of enforcement proceedings initiated under Law no. 6183, which were related to his debts to the Fund following the latter’s takeover of İktisat Bank. In particular, the case concerned the annulment of the Fund’s decision regarding the sale of immovable property belonging to company D. 46.     The applicant appealed against the decision of the first-instance administrative court, which had dismissed the case on the grounds of his lack of standing. He argued that the management and control of company D., along with the shareholders’ privileges, had been transferred to the Fund, as the company was part of the Erol Aksoy Group. He further argued that the contested property sale had been conducted to recover his debts and that, although he was not the company’s legal representative, he had a legitimate interest in the case on account of its direct connection to the repayment of his debts. 47.     On 20 July 2006, the Supreme Administrative Court, ruling unanimously, found that the applicant had a legal interest in the enforcement proceedings initiated under Law no. 6183, as he was the majority shareholder of İktisat Bank, which had been transferred to the Fund. The court held that the applicant had standing to challenge the transaction and quashed the administrative court’s earlier decision.      The Constitutional Court’s judgment of 12 December 2019 (the case of Erol Aksoy (no. 2)) 48.     The individual application in the above-mentioned case concerned the Fund’s failure to enforce court judgments that had annulled its decisions regarding the invitation to tender, the valuation and the sale of a media group, which included, among others, Cine 5 TV, a television channel owned by the Erol Aksoy Group, consolidated as an economic and commercial unit following the takeover of İktisat Bank. 49.     The Fund justified its failure to enforce the judgment on the grounds that the economic and commercial unit had already been transferred to the successful bidder, thereby severing any legal connection between the Fund and the asset in question. It argued that enforcing the annulment judgment would violate the purchaser’s acquired rights and undermine legal certainty and public trust, particularly as the purchase amount had been duly paid. The Fund further asserted that implementation of the judgment was both legally and practically impossible. The applicant complained that the Fund’s failure to implement the annulment judgment constituted a violation of his property rights, as guaranteed under Article 35 of the Constitution. 50.     As to the admissibility of the individual application, the Constitutional Court observed that the annulled administrative decisions had rendered the sale of the economic and commercial unit retroactively invalid and emphasised that legal or practical difficulties could not exempt the administration of its duty to enforce court judgments. It held that the compensation mechanisms provided under section 28(3) and (4) of Law no.   2577 did not constitute an alternative to enforcement, nor did they exempt the administration from its constitutional obligation to implement such decisions. 51.     In this regard, the Constitutional Court further noted that, while non ‑ pecuniary damages could be awarded in such cases, claims in respect of pecuniary damage were often dismissed as speculative under the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court. It noted that limiting enforcement solely to compensation risked excluding other viable means of restitution. The Constitutional Court held that the administration had an obligation either to enforce a court judgment to achieve restitutio in integrum or, if this was objectively impossible due to insurmountable factual or legal obstacles, to propose alternative measures providing adequate redress, without placing the burden on the applicant to initiate new proceedings. 52.     Accordingly, the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicant had exhausted all available remedies. 53.     The Constitutional Court further noted that the applicant’s claim concerned a continuing violation and, as such, considered that the application had been lodged within the time-limit. 54.     The Constitutional Court observed that the administration had failed to demonstrate the existence of insurmountable obstacles to enforcement or propose any alternative solutions. Instead, it had rejected the applicant’s requests. 55.     The Constitutional Court held that the completion of the sale did not constitute a legal or practical barrier to enforcing the judgment. It noted that, since the tendering process and related decisions had been the subject of ongoing judicial proceedings at the time, the successful bidder should have anticipated the possibility of the sale being annulled. The Constitutional Court concluded that the administration’s failure to enforce the annulment decisions amounted to a violation of the applicant’s property rights under Article   35 of the Constitution. THE LAW PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT The Government’s objections in general 56.     The Government raised several preliminary objections concerning the admissibility of the application. In respect of the application as a whole, they submitted that it should be declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. They further contended that the applicant had failed to lodge an individual application before the Constitutional Court and had, subsequently, not complied with the six-month time-limit. 57.     The Government also raised separate, specific objections relating to each of the applicant’s complaints. These included, on various grounds, that Article   6   §   1 of the Convention was inapplicable; that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, that the applicant did not have victim status, and that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 was incompatible ratione materiae . 58.     The Court will examine, under this heading, the Government’s objections concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the alleged failure to comply with the six-month time-limit. The remaining objections will be addressed, as appropriate, in the context of the examination of the applicant’s individual complaints.      Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 59.     The Government raised two objections concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Firstly, they argued that the applicant had failed to lodge an individual application with the Constitutional Court following the non ‑ enforcement of the decision of the General Assembly of 7 July 2015. Secondly, they contended that the applicant had not pursued compensation proceedings before the domestic courts, as provided for under section   28(3) and (4) of Law no. 2577 and Article 125 of the Constitution.    Alleged failure to lodge an individual application 60.     The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints were primarily based on the Fund’s decision, which had set the value of Viva TV-Radio Viva for the sale and had formed the subject matter of the first set of proceedings (see paragraphs 27-32 above). They argued that the subsequent sale had merely been an implementation of that decision. Accordingly, the applicant should have been aware that both the annulment judgment concerning the estimated value and the court’s judgment annulling the sale would remain unenforced following the notification of the Fund’s decision of 27   October 2015. This decision had been sent to the applicant in response to his request for the Fund to implement the court’s judgment delivered at the conclusion of the first set of proceedings (see paragraph 32 above). 61.     The applicant contested the Government’s submissions, asserting that at the time the Fund had given notice of its decision declaring that it would not implement the court’s judgment delivered at the conclusion of the first set of proceedings, the second set of proceedings had still been ongoing. Since the sale had been the subject of the second set of proceedings, its annulment could have invalidated the entire process, including the matters addressed in the first set of proceedings, which had ultimately occurred. In response, the applicant argued that his decision to apply to the Constitutional Court only after the Fund had informed him that it could not implement the court’s judgment annulling the sale at the end of the second set of proceedings should be considered sufficient to establish that he had duly exhausted all domestic remedies. 62 .     The Court notes that, on 24 February 2011, the applicant initiated an action against the Fund, seeking the annulment of the sale of Viva TV-Radio Viva (the second set of proceedings), while the proceedings concerning the determination of its value, which had been initiated on 7 February 2011 (the first set of proceedings), were still ongoing. It observes that the outcome of the first set of proceedings was determinative for the second. In this regard, the Court considers that the applicant’s primary objective was to prevent the sale of Viva TV-Radio Viva. The two sets of proceedings were thus interlinked, with the second set being dependent on the conclusions of the first. Notwithstanding the applicant’s repeated requests, the judgments delivered at the conclusion of those proceedings remained unenforced. The Court therefore finds that the circumstances at hand indicate the existence of a continuing situation in relation to the applicant’s complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (see Malama v. Greece , no.   43622/98, § 35, ECHR 2001-II). 63 .     Furthermore, it was not unreasonable for the applicant to await the outcome of the second set of proceedings before taking further action, especially since the sale occurred on 11 February 2011, while the first set of proceedings was still pending. The Court finds that the applicant’s ultimate aim shifted from preventing the sale to seeking the annulment of the sale. In that connection, it does not consider that the applicant unreasonably delayed the submission of his individual application to the Constitutional Court. The applicant’s decision to request the Fund to enforce the annulment judgment before seizing the court was reasonable. Moreover, following the Fund’s response, the applicant applied in a timely manner to the Constitutional Court, complaining of the non-enforcement of the judgments in question and alleging a violation of his right to property and his right to a fair trial. 64.     In view of the above, the Court considers that the Government’s objection in that regard must be rejected.    Alleged failure to apply to administrative courts for compensation 65.     The Government further argued that the application should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the applicant had failed to bring compensation proceedings before the domestic courts under section   28   (3) and   (4) of Law no. 2577 and Article 125 of the Constitution. 66.     The Court notes in particular that the administrative actions brought by the applicant were concluded in his favour and the ex tunc nullity of the disputed administrative acts was upheld by the domestic courts. The applicant also sought the enforcement of those decisions, but no action was taken by the administrative authorities, which were constitutionally bound to take all necessary measures to restore the situation that would have existed had Viva TV-Radio Viva not been unlawfully offered for sale and subsequently sold to a third party. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to pursue further actions against the State. The Court further notes that it has previously examined a similar objection and rejected it (see Süzer and Eksen Holding A.Ş. v. Turkey , no. 6334/05, §   95, 23   October 2012, and Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş. and Cıngıllıoğlu v.   Turkey , nos.   31833/06 and 37538/06, §§ 29-31, 21 July 2015). It sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present application and concludes that the applicant has complied with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. 67.     The Court therefore rejects the Government’s objection in that regard.      Compliance with the six-month time-limit 68.     The Government argued that the application was inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule, asserting that the applicant had been explicitly informed on 18 April 2016 by the Fund that the Supreme Administrative Court judgment could not be enforced, and that he therefore should have lodged the application within six months of that date. They maintained that subsequent domestic proceedings did not reset the time-limit and invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible under Article   35   §   1 of the Convention. 69.     The applicant responded that the application had been submitted within six months of the final domestic decision, namely the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 May 2018, thus complying with Article 35 § 1. The applicant argued that the Government’s assertion that the six-month period had begun on 18 April 2016 had been speculative and had contradicted their earlier position on the exhaustion of domestic remedies. He further noted that another case regarding the annulment of the sale had been ongoing and had not been addressed in the Fund’s letter of 18   April 2016. The applicant asserted that the Government’s objection should be dismissed. 70.     The Court reiterates its earlier findings that the judicial proceedings in issue were closely interconnected, and that the non-enforcement of the judgments delivered at the conclusion of those proceedings constituted a continuing situation (see paragraph 62 above). Furthermore, as previously noted, the applicant, having duly exhausted the domestic remedy of individual application to the Constitutional Court (see paragraph   63 above), lodged the present application on 5 December 2018, following the notification of the Constitutional Court’s decision on 7 J