CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 octobre 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 } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt }   Communicated on 23 October 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27043/15 Ömer ÇELIK against Turkey lodged on 20 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case mainly concerns a dispute arising over the application of a thirty day time-limit to challenge the amount of the compensation determined by the administration following the expropriation of the applicant’s plot of land in Istanbul. In 1988 when the authorities could not locate the applicant’s address in Istanbul, the decision concerning the expropriation was published in a national newspaper pursuant to the Notification Act (Law no. 7201). In 2009 the applicant initiated proceedings asking for an additional compensation for expropriation. The case was dismissed due to non ‑ compliance with the 30 day statutory time-limit. The domestic court concluded that the thirty day time-limit should be calculated as of 1988. The applicant complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention that the expropriation decision had not been served to his registered address. He also complained that he had not received any compensation for the expropriation of his land. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention? In the light of the relevant case-law (see, Dilipak and Karakaya v.   Turkey , nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, §81-87, 4 March 2014), did the national authorities take necessary measures to inform the applicant of the expropriation decision? In particular, having regard to the documents submitted by the applicant indicating that the applicant’s registered address was in Edirne at the relevant time, did the national authorities conduct any search to locate the applicant’s address in Edirne?   2.     Having regard to the fact that the applicant could not challenge the amount of the expropriation compensation determined by the administration, has there been an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? In particular, in the light of the Court’s judgment in the case of Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece (no. 44769/07, §§ 36-37, 5   November 2009), did the national authorities strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s right to property ?   3.     Did the administration make any payment to the applicant for the expropriation of his land? If not, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to being deprived of his property without receiving any compensation?