CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 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 21 November 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42224/06 Hüseyin AYDOĞAN against Turkey lodged on 3 October 2006 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the refusal of the domestic courts to award compensation to the applicant for loss of his pistachio trees subsequent to construction of a dam. The applicant owned pistachio trees on an unregistered plot of land. He brought proceedings for the registration of the land in his name in the land registry. His claim relating to the ownership of the land was rejected on the ground that the time-limit of twenty years’ adverse possession to acquire the land in question had not yet elapsed. However, the national courts held that the applicant owned the trees on the said land and ordered to make such an annotation in the land registry. During the construction of the Birecik dam, the applicant’s trees were submerged under water. The applicant’s compensation request for de facto expropriation of his trees by the authorities was rejected by the civil court of first instance, which defined the land as a public domain and concluded that there was no unlawful occupation of the land by the administration. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the authorities’ failure to compensate the loss of his trees constitutes a violation of his right to property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the annotation in the land registry concerning the ownership by the applicant of the trees and Article 19 (12) of the Expropriation Act (Law no.   2942), did the applicant have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession? 3.     If so, in view of the Court’s jurisprudence in the case of Vistiņš and   Perepjolkins v. Latvia ([GC], no. 71243/01, § 110, 25   October 2012), where it held that the taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value would normally constitute a disproportionate interference, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1, as a result of the lack of compensation for the loss of trees on the land in question?