CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 }   Communicated on 2 May 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1001/08 Ülfet EMİN against Turkey lodged on 26 December 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged de facto expropriation of the applicant’s plots of land in Northern Cyprus for a long period of time by the local Administration, prior to its formal expropriation. The applicant complains under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to award him any compensation for the deprivation of his property during the period prior to the formal expropriation. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions before its formal expropriation?   2.     If so, did this deprivation constitute a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions?   In particular, did the applicant receive any compensation for this de facto deprivation of his property prior to the formal expropriation (see Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no.   71243/01, §§   110-112, 25 octobre 2012)?