CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mai 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 } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 2 May 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42873/06 İSTANBUL SÜRYANİ KATOLİK VAKFI against Turkey lodged on 11 October 2006 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a religious foundation whose members are Assyrian Catholics. On 20 February 1998 the Ministry of Finance established a 99 years’ usufruct right in favour of the applicant over both the historical church, namely Sacre Coeur, and the Treasury’s land on which the Sacre Coeur was constructed. On 1 December 1998 following a case lodged by the Directorate General   of Foundations (the Directorate), the Beyoğlu Civil Court of General Jurisdiction ordered the transfer of the land’s ownership to the Directorate at the Land Registry pursuant to the Law no.7044.   Subsequently, on 31 May 2005 upon the request of the Directorate, the domestic courts terminated the applicant’s usufruct right on the ground that the Ministry of Finance had no competence to establish such a right at the relevant time. The applicant foundation complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention that the unlawful termination of its usufruct right by the national authorities had violated its right to property. It also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ decisions to terminate its usufruct right had constituted discrimination against it. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the applicant’s 99 years’ usufruct right constitute a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   ?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention due to the termination of its usufruct right? If so, has the applicant been deprived of its possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1? Did such deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant   ?   3.     Has the applicant foundation suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.1   ?