CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 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 22 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 49523/11 Bayrakdar ÖZDEMİR against Turkey lodged on 2 May 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the applicant’s compensation request for the loss of his property purchased from a certain person in the land registry, as a result of a court’s order which ruled that the land at issue could not be subject to private ownership. The applicant alleges that he relied on the land registry records in which there were no restrictions or annotation on the title deed during the sale contract before the land registry. The applicant complains that the refusal of his case has violated his right to property under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 QUESTION tO THE PARTIES In the light of the Court’s judgment of Gürtaş Yapı Ticaret ve Pazarlama   A. Ş. v. Turkey , (no. 40896/05, 7 July 2015), has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession due to the refusal of compensation for the annulment of his land’s title deed? In particular, did such deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?