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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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. 44986/16 Salim BAYIR against Turkey lodged on 22 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the authorities’ failure to fully comply with a court judgment, which annulled the parcelling act ( imar uygulaması ) removing the registration of the applicant’s property and allocating it to third persons. Following the Trabzon Municipality’s allocation of a land with a substantially reduced surface area (19.74 square meters) after the above ‑ mentioned judgment, the applicant initiated compensation proceedings for de facto expropriation, claiming that the remaining part of his land with a surface area of 61.29 square meters had been confiscated by the administration. The Trabzon Civil Court of General Jurisdiction dismissed the case. The Turkish Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s individual application, holding that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies for the alleged breach of his property rights in that he should have lodged an action against the third persons who had acquired the land. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the partial execution of the judgment in his favour. He also relied on Article   13 of the Convention, arguing that the remedy pointed out by the Constitutional Court was not effective. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the partial execution of the judgment, which was delivered by the Trabzon Administrative Court on 28 March 2007 and which annulled the parcelling act concerning the applicant’s property, impair the essence of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention (see, among other authorities, Burdov v.   Russia , no.   59498/00, CEDH   2002-III).   2.     Did the allocation of the applicant’s land to third parties as a result of the parcelling act in 1992 and the partial registration of another land on him by the Trabzon Municipality in 2009 violate his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   3.     Did the action against third persons, pointed out by the Constitutional Court in its decision of inadmissibility dated 16 March 2016, constitute an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, which the applicant was required to exhaust? If so, what is the statutory time-limit to lodge such a case before the domestic courts?   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.