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 }   Communicated on 22 May 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37857/14 YUSUFELI İLÇESINI GÜZELLEŞTIRME YAŞATMA KÜLTÜR VARLIKLARINI KORUMA DERNEĞI against Turkey lodged on 7 May 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the construction of a dam and a hydroelectric power plant on the Çoruh River in the Yusufeli district of Artvin. The administrative courts concluded that the administrative authorities had not been required to carry out an environmental impact assessment before taking the decision to construct the Yusufeli Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant. The applicant is an association dedicated to supporting and embellishing the Yusufeli district and the protection of its cultural assets. The applicant association complains about the potential damage that is likely to be caused in the region and, in particular, in the valley of Çoruh River, by the construction of the dam and the hydroelectric power plant, in respect of which no environmental impact assessment was conducted. It further complains about the consequent harm that this destruction would inflict on the private lives, homes and well-being of its 156 members who are inhabitants of Yusufeli. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES   1.     Can the applicant association claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34, of the alleged violations of the Convention (see Gorraiz   Lizarraga and Others v. Spain , no. 62543/00, § 36, ECHR 2004 ‑ III)?   2.     What is the purpose of the “environmental impact assessment” procedure under Turkish law? Was there any legal framework for achieving the purpose of the “environmental impact assessment” procedure in the context of the construction of the Yusufeli Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant?   3.     What are the consequences of the construction of the Yusufeli Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant for the members of the applicant association?   4.     Did the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court’s Joint Council of Administrative Chambers, according to which the administrative authorities had not been required to carry out an environmental impact assessment before taking the decision to construct the Yusufeli Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant, comply with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the administrative and judicial authorities examine the balance between the competing interests, namely, between the alleged potential damage the private lives, homes and well-being of the members of the applicant association and the public interest in the construction of the dam and the hydroelectric power plant? Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case?