CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 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 }   Communicated on 5 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 36021/09 Oktay TAŞ against Turkey lodged on 16 June 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the deduction made by the domestic court in the applicant’s overtime payments which were calculated in line with the relevant legislation. The applicant complains of a violation of his right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, arguing that the deduction lacked legal basis and rendered the additional payment foreseen by the legislation meaningless. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a “legitimate expectation” as regards the daily 5% increase for overtime payments, taking account of additional Article 1 of the Code on the Regulation of the Relations between the Employers and Employees in the Media Sector (Law no. 5953)?   If so, 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 the deduction of 90% of the amount calculated on the basis of the above-mentioned provision? In particular, was that interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law?   Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?