CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD4F78FA1 { width:131.02%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA2DCC26E { width:10%; 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 } .s86806DD { width:31.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8711280D { width:12.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s62E34FE1 { width:22.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s93E7A787 { width:10%; 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 } .s54422DF8 { width:31.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s36A225A5 { width:12.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s452B8B68 { width:22.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3192C8A1 { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 15 January 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 46852/09 Bahattin KÜÇÜK and others against Turkey lodged on 17 August 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the domestic authorities’ refusal to return the applicants’ land, which had been expropriated in 1944 for the purposes of an airport construction and which had not been used in line with that purpose afterwards. During the proceedings they brought for the annulment of the expropriation decision and to obtain compensation, the applicants argued that they had never been informed in any way about the expropriation procedure and that the land in question had never been used for purposes which constituted the basis of the expropriation. Their case was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on procedural grounds. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a "legitimate expectation" for the restitution of their property, taking into account Articles 22 or 23 of the Expropriation   Act   No.   2942, as interpreted by the courts? (see, mutatis mutandis , Kemp and Others v. Luxembourg , no. 17140/05, 24   April 2008)?   2.     Have the applicants been deprived of their 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? (a)     Did the applicants receive compensation for the expropriation of their properties? If not, did this situation place an undue burden on them (see Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, §   110, 25   October 2012)? (b)     Given the use currently being made of the property, was the expropriation based on a public interest ground within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Keçecioğlu and Others v.   Turkey , no.   37546/02, 8 April 2008)? (c)     Having regard to the State’s positive obligation to ensure in its domestic legal system that property rights are sufficiently protected by law, were the applicants afforded a reasonable opportunity of challenging effectively the measures depriving them of their right to property (see Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece , no. 44769/07, 5   November 2009)? (d)     Taking account of the reasoning of the domestic courts in dismissing their case, were the applicants provided with adequate procedural guarantees for their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Gereksar and Others v. Turkey , nos. 34764/05 and 3 others, 1 February 2011)?   3.     In view of the applicants’ inability to challenge the expropriation decision before the repeal of Law no. 3887 and the domestic court’s decision regarding the use of the expropriated land in 1998, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the Supreme Administrative Court’s dismissal of their case on procedural grounds (see Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte , cited above)? The Government are invited to provide the Court with case-law examples in this matter.   4.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Supreme Administrative Court provide sufficient reasoning, taking account of the applicants’ arguments as regards the applicability of Law no. 2942 in their case (see Moreira Ferreira v.   Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017)?   The parties are invited to provide the Court with an expert report, preferably judicial, on the value of the property at issue. The report should point out all the objective criteria it relies on in reaching its conclusions. LIST OF APPLICANTS No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representatives   Bahattin KÜÇÜK 1947 Turkish İzmir                       Denizer ŞANLI   Erol SARAÇOĞLU   Murat YAVUZ   Melek AVCI 1950 Turkish İzmir   Mürüvet Şenay ÇINAROĞLU 1944 Turkish İzmir   Orhan ERSANLI 1931 Turkish İzmir   Emine GAYIR 1937 Turkish İzmir   İsmet GÜLDEMİR 1950 Turkish Bolu   Ayhan İZMİR 1939 Turkish İzmir   Cengiz İZMİR 1957 Turkish İzmir   Nursel KARA 1960 Turkish İzmir   Havva KARADAĞ 1953 Turkish İzmir   Fatma KAYA 1923 Turkish İzmir   Ayten KAYAKUŞ 1941 Turkish İzmir   Nesrin KOCAORMAN 1964 Turkish İzmir   Hatice KÜÇÜK 1925 Turkish İzmir   Mehmet KÜÇÜK 1943 Turkish İzmir   Hacer BELHAN 1975 Turkish İzmir   Mehmet MERMERCİOĞLU 1977 Turkish İzmir   Ayşe ÖNDER 1948 Turkish İzmir   Mehmet SARGIN 1936 Turkish İzmir   Şerefnaz SÖNMEZ 1953 Turkish İzmir   Aligalip TUĞAN 1942 Turkish İzmir   Nilgün TUĞAN 1947 Turkish İzmir