CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 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 }   Communicated on 15 February 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42708/07 Ali ABİ against Turkey lodged on 15 September 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lack of compensation for the damages caused to the applicant as a result of the death of his animals because of the negligence of a trustee appointed by the judicial authorities to look after the animals. The animals in question had initially been seized in the course of criminal proceedings and the criminal court had subsequently ordered their restitution to the applicant. The applicant alleges that the death of his animals and the lack of compensation constitute a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have any other domestic remedies to exhaust other than bringing an action before the civil court? If so, the Government are invited to provide the Court with the relevant case-law examples showing that those remedies are effective. The Government are also requested to provide the Court with the decision of the Hakkari Civil Court of First Instance dated 6 April 2006.   2.     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 to the Convention due the refusal of the domestic authorities to compensate his damages resulting from the death of his animals in the hands of the trustee?