CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 12 December 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6783/18 Bora UZUN against Turkey and 7 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications listed in the appendix concern the prolonged non ‑ execution of the judgments delivered by the Ankara Civil Court in 2010 (cases nos. 2004/115 E., 2010/515 K. and 2004/116 E., 2010/516 K.), whereby the applicants were awarded TRY 67,567,690.00 in total as compensation for de facto expropriation of their land by the Middle East Technical University. Those judgments became final by a decision of the Court of Cassation in 2012. In the meantime, in 2011 the applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Ankara Execution Office to obtain that amount together with interest (files nos. 2011/1361 E. and 2011/1362 E.). In 2014 the applicants complained before the Constitutional Court about, inter alia , the authorities’ prolonged failure to fully comply with the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour. They noted that although certain partial payments had been made, a substantial part of the compensation awarded to them by the Civil Court remained unpaid. On 7 June 2017 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ right of access to court and right to property on account of the impugned partial execution and awarded the applicants compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Constitutional Court concluded that the Ministry of Finance was to pay the applicants the awarded compensation, within four months from the date on which the applicants would make an application for payment. Subsequently, on 18 July 2017 the applicants applied to the Ministry to enforce the judgments of the first-instance court as well as that of the Constitutional Court. However, no payment was made to them despite the expiry of the four-month time-limit indicated by the Constitutional Court. The applicants lodged the present application with the Court two months after the expiry of the said four-month period. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention arguing that the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour have not been fully executed despite the decision of the Constitutional Court finding a violation for the non-execution of the domestic courts’ judgments.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, on account of the authorities’ failure to fully execute the judgments delivered by the Ankara Civil Court (see Kuzu v. Turkey , no.   13062/03, 17 January 2006; Yerebasmaz v. Turkey , no.   14710/03, 10   October 2006; Ak v. Turkey , no. 27150/02, 31 July 2007; M. Kaplan v.   Turkey , no. 29016/04, 9 December 2008; and Necati Erol v. Turkey , no.   4387/08, 3 November 2011)? APPENDIX List of applications   No. Application no. Case name Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1 6783/18 Uzun v. Turkey Bora UZUN 31/01/1975 İstanbul Turkish 2 6787/18 Uzun v. Turkey Bahar UZUN 15/07/1947 İstanbul Turkish 3 6791/18 Uzun v. Turkey Sümer UZUN 17/11/1942 İstanbul Turkish 4 6793/18 Çakır v. Turkey Mustafa Cenk ÇAKIR 06/04/1966 İstanbul Turkish 5 6795/18 Çakır v. Turkey Seçkin Filiz ÇAKIR 05/04/1942 İstanbul Turkish 6 6796/18 Çakır v. Turkey Elif Burcu ÇAKIR 14/03/1975 İstanbul Turkish 7 6799/18 Çakır v. Turkey Burhan ÇAKIR 27/04/1973 İstanbul Turkish 8 6800/18 Çakır v. Turkey Nahide Güngör ÇAKIR 27/01/1936 İstanbul Turkish