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 } .s7584BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#222222 }   Communicated on 26 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 74127/10 Habib Bircan NACAR against Turkey lodged on 24 November 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s evacuation from a building. where he ran a café, before the expiration of his lease contract and without any compensation in return. The İzmir Municipality terminated the lease contract previously signed with the applicant and lodged an eviction action against him, on the basis of a new development plan, arguing that the relevant zone had been designated as a “recreation area”. In 2001 the applicant was evicted from the building pursuant to a court order to that effect. In 2006, he initiated compensation proceedings, claiming that the area in question had been allocated to a third party who operated an amusement park. The İzmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction dismissed the applicant’s case, holding that the deficiencies caused by the allocation of the impugned area to a third party had been corrected in 2007 by the re-arrangement of the amusement park’s borders. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of his eviction before the end of his lease contract, without any compensation? In particular, taking account of the expert report dated 15   May 2006, the letter of the Governorship of Izmir dated 23 January 2007 and the Ministry of Interior’s decision to initiate an investigation against those responsible, was the impugned area allocated to a third party, contrary to the reasons the applicant’s eviction had been based on?   Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?   The parties are invited to provide the Court with an expert report, preferably judicial, on the alleged damage caused to the applicant by the interference at issue. The report should point out all the objective criteria it relies on in reaching its conclusions.