CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 février 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 } .s2EC60FD2 { font-family:Arial; color:#2a2a2a } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9E3572C5 { width:89.4%; border-collapse:collapse } .s7D765F8C { width:8.38%; 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 } .s1237796D { width:21.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s83F8C330 { width:30.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5A1DC15 { width:20.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s66A02243 { width:18.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s284B66B0 { width:8.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE8C93DD7 { width:21.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FC7E70F { width:30.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC12404AB { width:20.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s82B0FB4B { width:18.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 11 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 65918/17 Abdülkadir İSTEMİL and Others against Turkey lodged on 2 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the restrictions on the applicants’ use of their property due to the expropriation of their plot of land to establish a public easement ( irtifak kamulaştırması ) in favour of BOTAŞ (a public economic enterprise), in order to construct a natural gas pipeline. In 2006 BOTAŞ lodged an action against the applicants before the Hilvan Civil Court, requesting the registration of the property in its name and the determination of the expropriation value. After having delivered three judgments, all of which were quashed by the Court of Cassation, in 2014 the Hilvan Civil Court awarded the applicants 135,665 Turkish liras (TRY), plus statutory interest. That judgment became final by a decision of the Court of Cassation in 2016. The Constitutional Court found the applicants’ individual application inadmissible, holding that the expropriation for easement instead of expropriation in whole had been proportionate to the general interest pursued. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, the applicants complain of the restrictions imposed on their use of the property on account of the expropriation for easement and the authorities’ failure to expropriate their land in whole. In that connection they argue that although they have been awarded compensation for the part of the land which was subject to easement expropriation, they no longer had access to their property due to the security lane established on it, which was not expropriated. They further complain of the amount of the compensation awarded by the domestic courts, arguing that the decrease in the value of the property was miscalculated. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the expropriation of their land for easement and the compensation awarded to them in that regard (see, mutatis mutandis , Kutlu and Others v. Turkey , no. 51861/11, 13   December 2016)?     APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Abdülkadir İSTEMİL 1960 Turkish Şanlıurfa 2. İbrahim Halil İSTEMİL 1965 Turkish Şanlıurfa 3. Ramazan İSTEMİL 1963 Turkish Şanlıurfa 4. Süleyman İSTEMİL 1969 Turkish Şanlıurfa 5. Emin PERTAV 1956 Turkish Şanlıurfa 6. Mehmet Ali PERTAV 1965 Turkish Şanlıurfa 7. Mehmet Cevher PERTAV 1972 Turkish Şanlıurfa