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 } .s4B163ECD { width:87.22%; border-collapse:collapse } .s81729C29 { width:8.26%; 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 } .sF7C6380 { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9299A6E7 { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF9126CBC { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 12 December 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 76019/17 Taliye ŞENAL and others against Turkey lodged on 5 October 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-execution of a decision delivered by the Ankara Civil Court (Case no. 2012/549 E., 2013/822 K.) in 2013, whereby the applicants were awarded compensation for de facto expropriation of their land by the Ankara Municipality. In 2014 the applicants complained before the Constitutional Court about, inter alia , the non ‑ execution of the Ankara Civil Court’s judgment. On 10 May 2017 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ right of access to court and right to property on account of the impugned non ‑ execution and awarded the applicants compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 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 decision in their favour has not been executed despite the decision of the Constitutional Court finding a violation for the non-execution of the domestic court’s judgment.   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 execute the decision 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   No. Applicant’s Name Birth date Nationality Place of residence 1 Taliye ŞENAL 20/12/1963 Turkish Zonhoven 2 Karagülmez ÇAKI 01/05/1962 Turkish Ankara 3 Bayram ÖZDEMİR 05/01/1956 Turkish Nevşehir 4 Derviş ÖZDEMİR 23/01/1950 Turkish Nevşehir 5 Mustafa ÖZDEMİR 15/01/1962 Turkish Baarn 6 Yaşar ÖZDEMİR 10/01/1958 Turkish Ankara