CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt }   Communicated on 12 June 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39900/10 Fatma KARATAŞ against Turkey and 8 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present group contains 9 applications concerning complaints regarding the restrictions imposed on the applicants’ plots of land due to the construction of the Birecik Dam. Claiming that their use of properties was completely restricted since their plots were in the absolute protection zone of the dam in question, and that the main roads leading to their properties had gone under water, the applicants brought compensation actions. They also requested the expropriation of their respective plots pursuant to Article 17 of the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution before the domestic courts. The domestic courts dismissed the cases on the ground that the applicants had not applied to the relevant administration for the expropriation of their land within the time-period stipulated in Article 5 of the Regulations on Expropriation of Immoval Properties in Construction of Dams prior to lodging their cases. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they neither obtained the expropriation of their land nor were awarded any compensation in return for the restrictions imposed on their properties. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, they complain that the domestic courts did not make any ruling on their request based on the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution, which does not foresee any kind of prior application within a specified time-limit to the administration.   QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to lack of expropriation or compensation for the damages stemming from the restrictions imposed on the applicants’ properties?   2.     Did the proceedings at issue afford the applicants a reasonable opportunity of putting their cases 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 , no. 34764/05 and 3 others, 1 February 2011)? In particular, did the domestic courts make any ruling on the applicants’ expropriation requests based on Article 17 of the Regulations on Control of the Water Pollution?   3.     Did the applicants have access to a court within the meaning of Article   6 of the Convention regarding their complaints based on Article   17 of the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution?   4.     Was there any obligation for the applicants to make a prior application within a specified time-limit to the administration prior to lodging their cases before the domestic courts in accordance with Article   17 of the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution?     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Plot No. Details regarding the actions   39900/10 11/05/2010 Fatma KARATAŞ 01/01/1931 ŞANLIURFA   Ferruh ÇAPAN 80/2 On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. (E:2009/141, K:2009/219)   On 8 December 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court’s judgment. (E:2009/14110, K:2009/17222)   40604/10 20/05/2010 Yaşar ALAKUŞ 01/01/1963 ŞANLIURFA   Ferruh ÇAPAN 82/20 On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. (E:2009/439, K:2009/214)   On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court’s judgment. (E:2009/14102, K:2009/15907)   40656/10 20/05/2010 Yaşar ALAKUŞ 01/01/1963 ŞANLIURFA   Ferruh ÇAPAN 82/30 On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. (E:2009/40, K:2009/215)   On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court’s judgment. (E:2009/14100, K:2009/15910)   40657/10 20/05/2010 Yasin KARAOĞLU 16/10/1952 ŞANLIURFA   Ferruh ÇAPAN 84/36 On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. (E:2008/304, K:2009/159)   On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court’s judgment. (E:2009/14105, K:2009/16559)   40663/10 20/05/2010 Yasin KARAOĞLU 16/10/1952 ŞANLIURFA   Mehmet KARAOĞLU 01/07/1937 GAZİANTEP     Ferruh ÇAPAN 83/1 On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. (E:2009/138, K:2009/216)   On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court’s judgment. (E:2009/14099, K:2009/15906)     40666/10 20/05/2010 Fatma KARATAŞ 01/01/1931 ŞANLIURFA       Salih AKBAŞ 06/03/1941 İZMİR     Ferruh ÇAPAN 84/71 On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. (E:2009/140, 2009/218)   On 8 December 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court’s judgment. (E:2009/14108, K:2009/17223)     40673/10 20/05/2010 Naime ÖZDEMİR 01/01/1932 GAZİANTEP   Ferruh ÇAPAN 80/3 On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. (E:2009/38, K:2009/213)   On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court’s judgment. (E:2009/14106, K:2009/15909)     40675/10 20/05/2010 Ömer KUTLU 01/01/1956 ŞANLIURFA   Emine Yıldız TOKSÖZ 01/01/1951 ŞANLIURFA   Ayniziliha TURAN 04/02/1947 ŞANLIURFA   Zübeyde YEŞİLDAĞ 15/08/1964 ŞANLIURFA     Edibe ÇOBANOĞLU 29/11/1961 GAZİANTEP   Hakkı TOKSÖZ 01/01/1982 ŞANLIURFA   İbrahim Halil ÇOBANOĞLU 20/04/1986 ŞANLIURFA   Ferruh ÇAPAN 80/13 On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. (E:2009/142, K:2009/220)   On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court’s judgment. (E:2009/14103,      K:2009/15908)     31351/11 11/01/2011 Abdo CAN 01/01/1932 ŞANLIURFA   Adile GÜZEL 01/01/1933 GAZİANTEP Hasan CAN 01/01/1941 ŞANLIURFA   Mehmet CAN 01/01/1950 ŞANLIURFA   Fidan KÖROĞLU 01/01/1941 ŞANLIURFA   Reşit CAN 01/01/1955 ŞANLIURFA   Ferruh ÇAPAN 495 On 2 July 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. (E:2009/237, K:2009/373)   On 15 December 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court’s judgment. (E:2009/17546,      K:2009/17936)