CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juin 2022

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8AD3AA70 { width:73.24%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB8F0A73D { width:10.58%; 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 } .sFB7E39AC { width:49.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s527AAE89 { width:39.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE6666F77 { width:10.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD798DB4E { width:49.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s35B474B { width:39.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 27 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9775/18 Fikriye KARAHAN and Others against Turkey (see list appended) communicated on 9 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the rejection of a restitution request concerning expropriated lands (Çorlu, block 281 parcel 5 and 21) which were not used in totality in line with public interest. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of their right to property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the totality of the expropriated land been used in the public interest?   2.     If not, has such a situation violated the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention ( Motais de Narbonne v. France , no.   48161/99, 2 July 2002, Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino , no.   40786/98, ECHR 2004 ‑ VIII)?   3.     Is the land still used in line with public interest? If not, did the applicant have a legitimate expectation to obtain its restitution pursuant to the provisions of Law no. 2942? Did the rejection of their claim constitute an interference with this legitimate expectation? Did this interference comply with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   The parties are invited to provide the Court with the relevant case-law of the domestic courts on Article 22 of Law no. 2942 (see Çiftçiler Joint Stock Company and Göksun v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 62323/09   and   64965/09, 24   November 2020).   APPENDIX   List of Applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration 1. Fikriye KARAHAN 1941 2. Ersin BAŞTAR 1979 3. Mehmet Eyüp BAŞTAR 1952 4. Nilüfer BAŞTAR 1977 5. Nurten ÖZEN 1952 6. İmran PEHLİVAN 1964 7. Kemal PEHLİVAN 1960 8. Nihat PEHLİVAN 1946 9. Rehan PEHLİVAN 1965 10. Salih PEHLİVAN 1945 11. Şehriban PEHLİVAN 1939