CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 janvier 2019

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84518AD8 { width:95.08%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF10CA44C { width:9.48%; 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 } .s9F58DBE0 { width:33.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA4931FD0 { width:13.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4200F6FD { width:19.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB445702B { width:23.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD4D262D2 { width:9.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sA19514BA { width:33.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5BBA12B5 { width:13.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s782881DE { width:19.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAAE784AA { width:23.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 8 January 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 7551/10 Mert Can BAYRAM and Others against Turkey lodged on 4 February 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicants’ eviction of their house on the basis of a court decision delivered against them in 1994, whereby they were found to have unlawfully occupied part of certain plots. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, arguing that the domestic authorities failed to take account of the notice in the Land Registry, according to which they had the ownership rights to the house on the impugned plots. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, on account of their eviction from their house and the alleged damage caused to their belongings? If so, was that interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants? In that connection, did the applicants have any rights to the house at issue on the basis of the Land Registry records pointing out that their testator was the owner of the house on the land? If so, did the domestic authorities take account of these records in executing the judgments for the prevention of unlawful occupation ( müdahalenin men’i ) and in dismissing the applicants’ cases? APPENDIX   No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence   Mert Can BAYRAM 1975 Turkish Istanbul   Betül BAYRAM 1965 Turkish Istanbul   Didem BAYRAM 1971 Turkish İstanbul   Yeşim ERDEM 1963 Turkish İstanbul