CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 22 May 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31710/07 Rahime ÖZKAN against Turkey lodged on 18 July 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic courts’ refusal to award the applicant compensation for the alleged de facto expropriation of her land. Following a cadastral survey conducted in 1974, the applicant brought an action before the Diyarbakır Cadastre Court and claimed that some part of her land had been registered in the name of the Treasury erroneously. Despite the expert reports submitted in favour of the applicant during those proceedings, the Diyarbakır Cadastre Court dismissed the applicant’s action but ruled that the applicant should instead bring an action for compensation against the Treasury for the de facto expropriation of her land. However, the applicant’s compensation request was dismissed by the Diyarbakır First Instance Court on the ground that the applicant did not have any property right over the land in question. The applicant complains under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 that her right to a fair trial and right to property were violated since she did not receive any compensation for the de facto expropriation of her land. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant further alleges that there was no effective remedy in domestic law in respect of her grievances. QUESTIOns TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Diyarbakır Cadastre Court’s judgments and the expert reports submitted in favour of the applicant during those proceedings, did the applicant have a possession or legitimate expectation within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ?   2.     Has the applicant been deprived of her possession? Did such deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on her?   3.     Did the proceedings at issue afford the applicant a reasonable opportunity of putting her case to the relevant authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures interfering with the rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Gereksar and Others v. Turkey , nos.   34764/05 and 3 others, § 51, 1 February 2011)?