CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2024

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2A7D9A9F { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDEE3DDCD { width:97.28pt; display:inline-block } .s7ECCB173 { width:57.18pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 29 January 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16865/22 DURAN MARITIME CORP. against Türkiye lodged on 16 March 2022 communicated on 12 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the seizure of the applicant’s vessel in the context of criminal investigations into fuel smuggling and the length of that measure. The applicant alleges that the seizure, notably in view of its duration and lack of compensation therefor, was in breach of its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Did the seizure of the applicant company’s vessel violate its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention? In particular, did that seizure impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company considering its length (see Łysak v. Poland , no. 1631/16, §§ 75-92, 7 October 2021; JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania , no. 3330/12, §§ 127 ‑ 133, 5   November 2013; and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey , no.   40998/98, §§   94 to 103, ECHR 2007 ‑ V)? Furthermore, did the refusal to award compensation for the loss of value suffered by the vessel due to the lack of maintenance during the seizure upset the balance between the interests of the community and those of the applicant ( Tendam v. Spain , no. 25720/05, §§   49 to   55, 13 July 2010)? The parties are invited to indicate the sale price of the vessel at the sale which has taken place on 17 February 2012.