CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 octobre 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 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 25 October 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49903/19 Shenay MEHMET against Cyprus lodged on 11 September 2019 communicated on 5 October 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the imposition of a usufruct (“ δικαίωμα επικαρπίας ”) over the Turkish Cypriot applicant’s property in Limassol, allowing a Greek Cypriot displaced person to reside in the property until her death or until the volatile situation in Cyprus changes. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision by way of recourse (no.   713/2011) and appeal (no.   33/2013). The Supreme Court dismissed her claims of a violation of her property rights (Article 23 of the Constitution). She   complains that the imposition of the usufruct is in breach of her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, in light of the Supreme Court’s findings in appeal no.   33/2013 dismissing the applicant’s claims under Article 23 of the Constitution, should the applicant have exhausted the remedy provided in section 6A of the Turkish-Cypriot properties (Administration and Other Matters) (Temporary Provisions) Law of 1991 (Law 139/1991) (as amended)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to the imposition of the usufruct on the legal title of her property? If so, has the applicant been deprived of her possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Was the interference   reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised, or did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant   (see Béláné Nagy v.   Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 112-118, 13 December 2016, and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V )?