CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 20 December 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 51224/08 Muhammer YİĞİT against Turkey lodged on 14 October 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the partial payment made to the applicant for his account at İktisat Bankası T.A.Ş. (“İktisat Bank”), following the latter’s takeover by the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund ( Tassarruf Mevduatı Sigorta Fonu ). The applicant initiated enforcement proceedings for the payment of the deducted amount. However, the bank brought a case, seeking a declaratory judgment in order to establish that it had no debts to the applicant. The Istanbul Commercial Court accepted the bank’s case, indicating that it did not agree with the expert reports, which concluded that the bank could not be considered to have been abused. The court found that the amount deducted from the applicant’s account had been accumulated by the application of excessive interest rates, which had been offered by the bank to provide money flow during a period of financial difficulty, and that the applicant had exploited the bank’s situation by profiting from those rates. The applicant complains of a violation of his right under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, as a result of the seizure of part of his account at İktisat Bank, corresponding to the amount accumulated by “overnight interests”, following that bank’s transfer to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund?   In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy , [GC], no.   22774/93, §   59, ECHR   1999-V)?