CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 11 July 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5854/10 Emine ÖZDEMIR against Turkey and 3 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present group contains 4 applications concerning complaints regarding the legal and physical 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 actions and requested the expropriation of their respective plots before the domestic courts pursuant to Article 17 of the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution. Relying on expert reports, which indicated that the value of their losses ranged from 18% to 40%, the domestic courts awarded each applicant a certain amount of compensation corresponding to the damage suffered, but did not order the expropriation of their respective plots of land. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that despite the restrictions imposed on their properties, the domestic courts’ refusal to expropriate them constitute a violation of their right to property. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, they further complain that the domestic courts did not make any ruling on their request based on the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution, which foresees the expropriation of the properties located in the absolute protection zone of the dams. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the Court’s judgement of Kutlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 51861/11, 13   December 2016), 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 the restrictions imposed on the applicants’ respective plots of land?   2.     In the light of the domestic law, in particular under Article 17 of the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution, did the applicants have a right to expropriation of their property? If so, did the fact that the domestic courts awarded the applicants a certain amount of compensation instead of ordering the expropriation of their plots of land, constitute a violation of applicants’ right to property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   3.     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 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (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 Water Pollution? APPENDIX List of applications   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   5854/10 11/01/2010 Emine ÖZDEMİR 01/01/1934 Şanlıurfa   Ferruh ÇAPAN   5877/10 11/01/2010 İsmail Hakkı ERDOĞAN 01/05/1952 Halfeti   Ferruh ÇAPAN   5886/10 11/01/2010 Hadice KANDAMAR 01/07/1931 Halfeti Mustafa UYAN 02/08/1944 İskenderun Hasan UYAN 02/05/1946 İskenderun Hüseyin UYAN 27/04/1956 İskenderun Nuriye UYAN 03/12/1952 İskenderun Fehime YARDIMCI 16/07/1951 İskenderun   Ferruh ÇAPAN   18471/11 07/01/2011 Ayşe KARAKUŞ 12/08/1941 Şanlıurfa Mehmet Ali ALKESEN 28/07/1944 Şanlıurfa Muhiddin DALKESEN 01/07/1933 Şanlıurfa Ahmet DALKESEN 19/10/1947 Şanlıurfa Hadice TOKSÖZ 24/12/1959 Şanlıurfa Salih DALKESEN 01/01/1954 Şanlıurfa Mehmet DALKESEN 01/01/1952 Şanlıurfa   Ferruh ÇAPAN