CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 avril 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 }   Published on 3 May 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17386/18 TEKNOSİS KOMÜNİKASYON İNŞ. TURİZM SAN. VE LTD. ŞTİ. and Serpil ÖLCER against Turkey lodged on 12 March 2018 communicated on 15 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns non-execution of judicial decisions in favour of the applicants. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicants complain about the continuing non-enforcement of the final judicial decisions in their favour. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants company’s 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 comply with the enforcement proceedings, which became final, concerning the applicant company’s receivables (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)?