CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 13 December 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10596/13 Gönül ŞENGÜL against Turkey and 8 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the refusal of the domestic authorities to restitute to the applicants a plot of land donated to the administration with condition, despite the fact that disputed land had not been used for the designated purposes by the municipality. The applications concern a plot of land situated in block no. 2956, parcel no.   1 in Eskişehir. Following a cadastral work on the land, the applicants ceded the above mentioned land to the municipality for public interest purposes (in particular with the clause of “municipal service area”). In 2005 there had been an amendment in the zoning plan and the land was divided into two lots. The first part was allocated for the construction of a tram station. The second part was allocated for public service and registered in the name of Odunpazarı Municipality. Subsequently, the municipality started the construction of a dormitory on the second part of the land. However after the construction was completed, the building was rented out to a private company as a hotel for ten years. The applicants brought proceedings before the domestic courts to recover the possession of the land which had not been used for the designated purpose by the municipality. However their requests were rejected on the ground that the plot of land in question was used in accordance with the clause of public service. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, the applicants complained of the refusal to restitute the donated land although it is not used for the donation condition.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the cases of Karaman v. Turkey (no. 6489/03, 15   January 2008) and Sağlık İnşaat Turizm Sanayi Taahhüt ve Ticaret Ltd.   Şti. v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 55549/11, 7 April 2015), has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as the applicants alleged that their land had not been used for public interest purposes by the municipality? If yes, did such interference strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individuals’ fundamental rights.   2.     In this connection was there a public interest in renting out the building to a private company? Furthermore, in Turkish law, what kinds of services are covered by the notion of “municipal service area”?   The parties are invited to submit expert reports, preferably obtained under the control of a judge, on the value of the disputed land on the rental date, exposing in details the objective datas on which their conclusions are based.   The Government is invited to provide the Court with the all relevant documents and information concerning the disputed land, including a copy of the rent contract.     appendıx     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   10596/13 19/12/2012 Gönül ŞENGÜL 25/05/1948 Eskişehir   İrfan BORÇE   10602/13 19/12/2012 Selçuk OĞUZ 21/07/1954 Ankara   İrfan BORÇE   10603/13 18/12/2012 Namık AKÇARDAK 01/09/1949 Eskişehir   İrfan BORÇE   10604/13 18/12/2012 Emine Sevim ÇIKILIOĞLU 20/03/1932 Eskişehir   İrfan BORÇE   10605/13 18/12/2012 Hüseyin Yılmaz ŞENGÜL 18/09/1943 Eskişehir   İrfan BORÇE   10606/13 18/12/2012 Asiman ERGİNEL 04/01/1946 Eskişehir   İrfan BORÇE   10607/13 19/12/2012 Deniz GİDER 12/01/1966 Istanbul   İrfan BORÇE   10608/13 19/12/2012 Cahide DURU 01/11/1945 Istanbul   İrfan BORÇE   10609/13 19/12/2012 Ergun DURU 10/07/1967 Istanbul   İrfan BORÇE