CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 septembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal }   Communicated on 7 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58521/10 Şengül KARAKOÇ and Mete KARAKOÇ against Turkey lodged on 2 September 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants were members of a cooperative and had each title to an immovable property built by that cooperative. Following their resignation from membership, the cooperative brought proceedings against the applicants for the annulment of the title to their respective properties. In both cases, the domestic court found against the applicants, annulled their title and ordered the registration of the properties in the cooperative’s name. The court, referring to Law no. 1163 on Cooperatives, held that a member who resigned from the cooperative before its liquidation was completed could no longer claim any rights over the property. The decisions were upheld by the Court of Cassation and became final on 12 March 2010. The applicants complain that the annulment of the title to their property in the absence of any specific provision in the applicable law to that effect and despite them fulfilling all their financial obligations towards the cooperative constituted an unlawful and disproportionate interference with their peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   2.     If so, have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, was the deprivation sufficiently foreseeable regard being had to the fact that at the time of the proceedings Law no. 1163 on Cooperatives did not expressly provide for the annulment of title upon resignation from a cooperative which has achieved its purpose and is being liquidated?   3.     Was the interference reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realized, or did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   The parties are invited to inform the Court whether the applicants recovered any amounts from the cooperative in compensation for the annulment of title to their properties and to provide relevant documents.         Şengül KARAKOÇ is a Turkish national who was born in 1947, lives in Istanbul and is represented by H. G. Sarı.     Mete KARAKOÇ is a Turkish national who was born in 1944, lives in Istanbul and is represented by H. G. Sarı.