CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 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 }   Communicated on 8 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38792/08 Elif YÜCE against Turkey lodged on 31 July 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s claim for acquisition of a piece of land by way of adverse possession. The applicant challenges the fairness of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention and alleges that the refusal of her case has violated her right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did she have a legitimate expectation as regards her claim concerning the property that she had been using for an extended period of time?   2.     If so, has the applicant been deprived of her possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Did such deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on her? In particular, having regard to the fact that the applicant was not paid any compensation, was a fair balance struck between the applicant’s rights and the general interest?   3.     Having regard to the findings in the expert reports and the witness statements establishing the characteristic of the land at issue, as well as the recognition of the neighbouring parcels in the name of the relevant persons, was the dismissal of the applicant’s case compatible with the procedural requirements implicitly guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   4.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the conflicting decisions of the Court of Cassation as regards the applicant’s parcel and the neighbouring parcels comply with the requirements of legal certainty (see Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no.   13279/05, §§ 49-58, 20 October 2011)?   The parties are requested to submit copies of courts’ decisions and relevant expert reports concerning the neighbouring parcels’ compensations for the de facto expropriation.