CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 avril 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 6 April 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14028/06 Turan KÖKSAL against Turkey lodged on 22 March 2006 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the expropriation of a plot of land belonging to the applicant. In 1979 the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement ( Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı ) decided to expropriate the applicant’s land and determined the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant. In 1980 the applicant filed an action for additional compensation. On 2 June 1983 the Kartal Third Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded the applicant 1,625610 Turkish liras as an additional compensation. The applicant alleges that he did not receive the amounts in question. In 1994 the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement brought an action before the Kartal Second Civil Court of General Jurisdiction and requested the registration of the land in their name. On 30 September 2004 the domestic court accepted the administration’s request and ordered the land to be registered in the name of the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement at the Land Registry. In 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court’s judgment and pointed out in its reasoning that the applicant had failed to prove that he had not been paid any compensation for expropriation. The applicant mainly complained under the Article of Protocol No.1 to the Convention that since he had not been paid any compensation in return for the expropriation of his land, the deprivation of his property without any compensation had violated his right to property. QUESTIOns tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the administration make the relevant payment to the applicant for the expropriation of his land? If not, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   2.     Did the Court of Cassation’s decision requiring the applicant to prove that he had not received any compensation for the expropriation of his land impose an excessive individual burden on him within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?