CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s565315DD { font-family:Arial; color:#949494 } Communicated on 18 January 2021 Published on 8 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10570/18 Halil ERDOĞAN against Turkey lodged on 1 February 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-execution of a final judicial decision awarding the applicant compensation for de facto expropriation of a plot of land which he partially owned. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention arguing that despite the Constitutional Court’s decisions finding violations for non ‑ execution of domestic decisions in his favour, the decision in question has not been fully executed.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and his right of peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention on account of the authorities’ alleged failure to fully execute the final judicial decision delivered in the applicant’s favour (see Kuzu v.   Turkey , no.   13062/03, 17 January 2006; Yerebasmaz v.   Turkey , no.   14710/03, 10   October 2006; M. Kaplan v.   Turkey , no.   29016/04, 9   December 2008; and Necati Erol v.   Turkey , no.   4387/08, 3   November 2011)?   The parties are invited to submit updated and detailed information on the state of execution of the court’s judgment.