CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 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 31 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58919/18 Erol AKSOY against Turkey lodged on 5 December 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns two related administrative proceedings brought by the applicant against the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund ( Tasarruf Mevduat Sigorta Fonu – hereinafter “the Fund”) for the annulment of a tender concerning the sale of his former companies to a third party . In both proceedings the Supreme Administrative Court’s General Assembly of Administrative Proceedings Divisions annulled the tender in question, holding that the decision-making process in ascertaining the tender amount had not been in accordance with the applicable procedure. The applicant’s subsequent request for the enforcement of these decisions was refused by the Fund on account of the fact that the companies had been sold to a third party and the amounts were paid in full. The Fund therefore held that restitutio in integrum was not possible in the circumstances of the case. The application raises questions under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the application compatible with the provisions of the Convention ratione personae , given that the applicant complains about the sale of companies which he formerly owned (see Kin-Stib and Majkić v. Serbia , no.   12312/05, § 74, 20 April 2010)? What was the shareholder status of the applicant at the time when his former companies were sold? In that connection can the applicant bring complaints solely on his own behalf with respect to the alleged violations of the Convention?   2.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb applicable to the administrative proceedings in question? In particular, were these proceedings directly decisive vis-à-vis the applicant’s debts towards the Fund? If so, was the failure of the Fund to comply with the administrative court decisions compatible with the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (see Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş. and Cıngıllıoğlu v. Turkey , nos. 31833/06 and 37538/06, §   41, 21 July 2015)?   3.     Did the applicant have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning his shares in the companies at the time of their sale by tender to the third party? If so, has the applicant been deprived of his 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? If so, did that deprivation comply with the condition that no excessive individual burden could be imposed on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59 ECHR 1999-V)?   The parties are requested to provide information concerning the take-over of the applicant’s companies by the Fund, the protocol signed between them, the applicant’s obligations towards the Fund as well as any litigation pending between the parties concerning the companies in question.