CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 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 }   Communicated on 28 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 44521/11 E-İLETİŞİM HİZMETLERİ TİC. VE SAN. A. Ş. against Turkey lodged on 15 April 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant company’s request for the reimbursement of a certain amount of tax paid to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. The applicant company’s request was partially granted by the Istanbul Tax Court for the years 2005 and 2006. The applicant company complains of a violation of its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the lack of any interest applied to the amount reimbursed. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.1, on account of the domestic courts’ refusal to award interest on the tax reimbursed to the applicant company, running from the date of the payment?   2.     If so, was that interference compatible with Article 1 of Protocol   No.1?   The parties are requested to indicate the date and the amount of the payment and reimbursement of the aforementioned tax.