CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-187568
- Date
- 8 octobre 2018
- Publication
- 8 octobre 2018
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s75E70776 { height:52.9pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s5131E8B1 { height:43.8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 8 October 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20937/10 Erol GÜNEL against Turkey and 8 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ inability to use their lands as a result of the designation of their property as military security zone and the domestic courts’ refusal to award them compensation for the resulting restriction. The applicants’ lands were previously designated as military forbidden zone and were later converted into military security zone. They all initiated compensation proceedings for de facto expropriation before the civil courts. Their cases were dismissed by the domestic courts on the grounds that the restrictions had been terminated by the re-classification of the properties as military security zone. Those sets of proceedings became final in 2003. In 2004 the applicants lodged new cases before the Oltu Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, this time requesting the halt of the unlawful occupation of their lands (men-i müdahale davası) and seeking compensation (ecrimisil davası) . The court once again dismissed their cases, finding that although the restriction on the property had indeed been established, the applicants had failed to substantiate their loss resulting from that restriction. The details of the applications are set out in the attached table. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, the applicants complain about the restrictions they have had to endure as a result of the interference of the military authorities. In their view, this interference constituted de facto expropriation of their land and that the authorities failed to pay them compensation to cover their losses. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, as a result of the designation of their lands as military security zone and the resulting restrictions on their access to and use of their lands? In that connection, what was the extent of the impugned restrictions? In particular, did those restrictions and the domestic authorities’ refusal to expropriate the lands or award compensation to the applicants impose an excessive individual burden on them (see, mutatis mutandis , Sarıca and   Dilaver v. Turkey , no. 11765/05, 27 May 2010)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the impugned proceedings, in particular, the decisions of the Court of Cassation, the documents submitted before the domestic court by the applicants in support of their compensation claims, and any expert report assessed by the court to determine the applicants’ losses. The parties are also requested to provide the Court with an expert report, preferably judicial, on the alleged damage caused to the applicants by the impugned interference. The report should point out all the objective criteria it relies on in reaching its conclusions. No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   20937/10 30/03/2010 Erol GÜNEL 16/12/1938 ERZURUM   Yurdan DAĞAŞAN   20944/10 30/03/2010 Torun SÜLEYMANOĞLU ERZURUM Yurdan DAĞAŞAN   20950/10 30/03/2010 Dursun ÖNAL 30/04/1944 ERZURUM   Sariye ÖNAL 01/01/1930 ERZURUM   M. Nukrettin ÖNAL 01/01/1950 ERZURUM   Nurullah Nail ÖNAL 01/01/1958 ERZURUM   Şerafettin ÖNAL 26/10/1931 ERZURUM   Şükran ÖZBAHÇELİ 01/01/1959 ERZURUM   Semiha DÖĞER 01/01/1948 ERZURUM   Sonerhan ÖNAL 01/01/1965 ERZURUM   Saliha ATEŞDENYILMAZ 01/01/1948 ERZURUM   Yurdan DAĞAŞAN   21348/10 30/03/2010 Bahar YILDIZ 01/01/1974 ERZURUM   Murat YILDIZ 01/01/1976 ERZURUM   Orhan AYDIN 01/06/1953 ERZURUM Yurdan DAĞAŞAN   21371/10 30/03/2010 Yavuz ÖZDEN ERZURUM   Yurdan DAĞAŞAN   21385/10 30/03/2010 Esme ÇAVUŞ 01/01/1932 ERZURUM   Muhittin ÇAVUŞ 01/01/1950 ERZURUM   Münevver ARAS 05/02/1952 ERZURUM   Ayfer YILDIRIM ERZURUM   Vildan YEŞİLYURT ERZURUM   Kadriye ÜSTÜN 01/01/1954 ERZURUM   Gülçin ÇEVİK ERZURUM   Yurdan DAĞAŞAN   21453/10 30/03/2010 Yavuz VAROL ERZURUM   Mine CENGİZ ERZURUM   Yunus VAROL ERZURUM   İbrahim VAROL 01/01/1964 ERZURUM   Fatma ÇİMEN ERZURUM   Salih VAROL ERZURUM   Mustafa VAROL ERZURUM   Adem VAROL 01/01/1976 ERZURUM   Fatma ASLAN 08/01/1960 ERZURUM   Salim VAROL ERZURUM     Talip ASLAN ERZURUM   Dilek ASLAN ERZURUM   Fazilet GEZER ERZURUM     Yurdan DAĞAŞAN   21674/10 30/03/2010 Esra YILMAZ 01/01/1977 ERZURUM   Abdurrahman ÖZDEN 01/08/1934 ERZURUM   Tuncay YILMAZ 15/03/1962 ERZURUM   Ahmet YILMAZ 03/09/1971 ERZURUM   Ruşen YILMAZ 01/01/1936 ERZURUM   Fatma ŞAHİNCİ 04/06/1966 ERZURUM   Yurdan DAĞAŞAN   22592/10 30/03/2010 Süleyman YILDIZ 29/09/1966 ERZURUM   Abdülkadir YILDIZ 01/01/1968 ERZURUM   Cumhur YILDIZ 01/01/1960 ERZURUM   Osman YILDIZ 01/01/1955 ERZURUM   Nuran YILDIZ 01/01/1954 ERZURUM   Şeref YILDIZ ERZURUM   Hamza YILDIZ   ERZURUM   Saniye YILDIZ ERZURUM   Hasan YILDIZ 01/02/1951 ERZURUM   Yurdan DAĞAŞAN      Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 8 octobre 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-187568
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel