CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 8 March 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 21936/17 Hasan Hüseyin KAN against Turkey lodged on 24 February 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the substantial amount of lawyer’s fee imposed on the applicant by the domestic court as a result of expropriation proceedings brought against him by the administration. The applicant complains of a violation of his right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, arguing that the lawyer’s fee he had to pay was not proportionate to the compensation awarded to him. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions? In particular, did the fact that the applicant was ordered to pay a lawyer’s fee to the expropriating public authority constitute an excessive burden which upset the fair balance which must be struck between the general interest of the community and the fundamental rights of the individual (see, mutatis mutandis , Perdigão v. Portugal [GC], no. 24768/06, §§ 67-78, 16 November 2010)?