CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2025

.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 } .s3BCCA86F { width:107.96%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF98D9402 { width:7.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBFA9A53 { width:28.46%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCA4AF0D0 { width:16.08%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC88969C8 { width:19.66%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s12E7DB59 { width:28.58%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF9E348 { width:7.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sEE7A8F6E { width:28.46%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s4412B0A0 { width:16.08%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s41CB5B44 { width:19.66%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sE3B0CB63 { width:28.58%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } Published on 7 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23981/24 Gülendam KINACI and Others against Türkiye lodged on 2 August 2024 communicated on 19 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the loss of immovable property without compensation suffered by the applicants. The immovable property in question was originally a public property but was sold by the Yemliha Municipality (“Municipality”) to third parties in 1974 and subsequently acquired from them by the applicants’ de cujus . At the end of a series of civil proceedings, it was decided that the immovable property was a public asset that could not be privately owned. Accordingly, it was registered as belonging to the Treasury. The applicants’ de cujus subsequently brought an action for compensation for the damages they had suffered against the relevant municipality and the Treasury. This claim for damages included the immovable property as well as the constructions on it. The claim was dismissed as regards the annulment of the title deed property on the grounds that the sale by the Municipality was invalid ab initio and as regards the constructions on the grounds that the de cujus had not yet been evicted. The applicants complain of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of the possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention in respect of the loss of the immovable property without compensation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, due to the loss of immovable property without compensation? In particular, in view of the Court’s relevant case ‑ law ( Gladysheva v. Russia , no. 7097/10, §§ 64-83, 6 December 2011; Semenov v. Russia , no. 17254/15, §§ 59-72, 16 March 2021; Beinarovič and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 70520/10, 21920/10 and   41876/11, §§   138 ‑ 164, 12 June 2018; and Muharrem Güneş and Others v.   Turkey , no.   23060/08, §§ 70 ‑ 83, 24 November 2020), did the interference strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicants within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name   Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Gülendam KINACI 1951 Turkish Kayseri 2. Fatma ARIK 1978 Turkish Kayseri 3. Ahmet KINACI 1980 Turkish Kayseri 4. Erdal KINACI 1971 Turkish Kayseri 5. Hasene KINACI 1974 Turkish Kayseri 6. Yeter KINACI 1979 Turkish Kayseri 7. Medine OĞUZ 1977 Turkish Kayseri