CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 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 }   Communicated on 1 February 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27530/09 YÜKSELLER GIDA TİC. SAN. LTD. ŞTİ. against Turkey lodged on 10 May 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the amount of the compensation determined by the domestic courts following the de facto expropriation of the applicant’s plot of land. The applicant complains of a violation of its right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, arguing that the domestic courts failed to take account of the findings of the expert reports in calculating the amount of compensation and applied an insufficient interest rate to the compensation awarded. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the domestic court’s calculation of the compensation awarded to him for the de facto expropriation of its land (see Yıltaş Yıldız Turistik Tesisleri A.Ş. v. Turkey , no. 30502/96, 24 April 2003) and the insufficiency of the interest rate applied to that amount (see Sarıca and Dilaver v.   Turkey , no.   11765/05, 27 May 2010)?