CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2018

.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 } .s9E10B953 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 23 February 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43874/14 Naciye KURT against Turkey lodged on 9 June 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the registration as Treasury’s property of plots of land for which the applicant allegedly holds registered title deed. The applicant claims that a court decision confirmed that the title deed in question corresponds to these plots. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that she was deprived of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the applicant’s title deed correspond to the plots of land located in the district of Kartal which have been the subject of the proceedings complaint of by the applicant? If yes, did the registration of these plots as the property of the Treasury constitute a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   2.     In what way and by whom was the land in question used since the date of the cadastral survey?   3.     Having regard to the State’s positive obligation to ensure in its domestic legal system that property rights are sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies are provided whereby the victim of an interference can seek to vindicate his rights, including, where appropriate, by claiming damages in respect of any loss sustained (see Blumberga v.   Latvia , no. 70930/01, § 67, 14 October 2008), was the applicant afforded a reasonable opportunity of challenging effectively the measures depriving her of her right to property or of obtaining an adequate redress? In this context, does Article 1007 of Civil Code afford the applicant a reasonable opportunity to obtain compensation? In particular, what is the time-limit for such an action and when did it start to run in the situation of the applicant? The Government are invited to submit the examples of judicial decisions rendered in comparable situations and showing the effectiveness of this remedy.   The parties are also invited to provide the Court with all relevant documents concerning the case (such as expert reports, a cadastral survey report, and the land registry records).