CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 2023

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; 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 } .s18084E5B { width:42.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB6D26911 { width:27%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE5627FA5 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF62ACFC7 { width:42.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1741BFC { width:27%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B7A7BB6 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 9 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 8052/21 Osman ŞAHİNKAYA and Others against Türkiye lodged on 15 January 2021 communicated on 20 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the transfer of a part of the applicants’ property to the General Directorate of Highways by a court decision on the basis that the property had been expropriated before it was sold to the applicants’ father in 1977 even though there were no annotations in the land register. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no.   71243/01, §§   110-112, 25 October 2012)?   2.     Was the expropriation process finalised in accordance with the relevant domestic law? Did the General Directorate of Highways pay an expropriation compensation for the property to the previous owner, to the applicants’ father or to the applicants?   3.     Did the deprivation of property in the present case impose an excessive and individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis , Muharrem Güneş and Others v. Turkey , no. 23060/08 , §§ 70-83, 24 November 2020)? APPENDIX List of applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality 1. Osman ŞAHİNKAYA 1968 Turkish 2. Bünyamin ŞAHİNKAYA 1965 Turkish 3. Faruk ŞAHİNKAYA 1963 Turkish