CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7584BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#222222 }   Communicated on 26 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14402/11 Hüseyin ÖZTÜRK against Turkey lodged on 29 December 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the deduction of part of the applicant’s land by the administration as “contribution to planning costs” ( düzenleme ortaklık payı ) for the construction of a road and the subsequent sale of that property to a third party following an amendment made in the zoning plan. The case lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the Büyükçekmece Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. In line with the reasoning of the Court of Cassation, the domestic court found that pursuant to Article 35 of the Expropriation Act (Law no. 2942), the ex-owners of a land, which had been taken as “contribution to planning costs”, could not claim compensation or restitution. The court further held that the subsequent changes in the zoning plan and the allocation of the land to third parties would not provide an opportunity for the ex-owners to claim title. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the deprivation of his property?   In particular, was the allocation of part of his land to a third party in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided by law, taking into account that it had been deducted for public purposes as “contribution to planning costs”?   Did that deprivation and the Court of Cassation’s interpretation of Article   35 of the Expropriation Act, as noted in its decision dated 29   March 2007, impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Karaman v.   Turkey , no. 6489/03, 15 January 2008)?   The parties are invited to provide the Court with an expert report, preferably judicial, on the value of the property at issue. The report should point out all the objective criteria it relies on in reaching its conclusions.