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 } Published on 7 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6974/21 Kenan ÖNCEL against Türkiye lodged on 5 January 2021 communicated on 19 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the de facto expropriation of a plot of land partially owned by the applicant and the non-execution of a final court judgment awarding him compensation for the said de facto expropriation. The applicant complains that his property was expropriated without following the legal procedure provided for by law, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, he also complains that the binding and enforceable court judgment in his favour has not been executed. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the de facto expropriation of his land ( Sarıca and   Dilaver v. Turkey , no. 11765/05, §§ 38-52, 27 May 2010)?   2.     Has the judgment of the Ankara Civil Court, which became final on 3   December 2019, been enforced? If not, was such a situation compatible with the applicant’s right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ( Kuzu v.   Turkey , no.   13062/03, §§ 14-20, 17 January 2006; Yerebasmaz v.   Turkey , no.   14710/03, §§ 24-26, 10 October 2006; Ak v. Turkey , no.   27150/02, §§   21 ‑ 28, 31 July 2007;   M. Kaplan v. Turkey , no. 29016/04, §§   16-19, 9   December 2008; and Necati Erol v. Turkey , no. 4387/08, §§   11-15, 3   November 2011)?