CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 décembre 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 15 December 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 53022/15 Hasan ULUDAĞ against Turkey lodged on 7 October 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of applicant’s right to property due to the failure of the domestic authorities to compensate the adverse effects of the expropriation on his remaining land. A part of the applicant’s farmland was expropriated by the administration for the construction of a railroad. Following the construction of the railroad, alleging that his access to his farmland had been blocked, the applicant brought proceedings before the Civil Court of First Instance and requested the expropriation of his remaining land. If not, the applicant claimed compensation for the adverse effects of expropriation on his farmland. In any case, the applicant further claimed compensation for his estimated loss of earnings following the expropriation of his land. His claims were rejected by the civil court. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained that he had lost all use of his land, which had become inaccessible following the building of a railroad, and that the administrative authorities had not formally expropriated the land or awarded him compensation. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES In the light of the case of Aygün v. Turkey , (no. 35658/06, 14 June 2011), did the refusal of the authorities to expropriate the remaining part of the applicant’s land and to award him any compensation constitute a violation of the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1?