CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC0FD8C42 { width:119.62%; border-collapse:collapse } .s24DA8339 { width:6.46%; 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 } .sDEE8326E { width:38.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3C587778 { width:14.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3C4B9ACB { width:16.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s98D74E62 { width:24.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEF7374D2 { width:6.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22121197 { width:38.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8B3DFBE4 { width:14.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sED72F51C { width:16.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF8149E29 { width:24.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 21 July 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14837/21 Ertuğrul KÜRKCÜ and Others against Türkiye lodged on 4 March 2021 communicated on 3 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the de facto expropriation of a plot of land partially owned by the applicants and the non-execution of a final court judgment awarding them compensation for the said de facto expropriation. The applicants complain that their 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 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, they also complain that the binding and enforceable court judgment in their favour has not been fully executed despite the decision of the Compensation Commission established by Law No.   6384. The applicants also alleged a violation under Article 13 of the Convention in the absence of an effective domestic remedy for the enforcement of the judgment in their favour. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ 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 their 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 27   April 2016, been fully enforced? If not, was such a situation compatible with the applicants’ right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or their 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 ) ?   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Ertuğrul KÜRKCÜ   1948 Turkish Istanbul 2. Ahmet Yavuz KÜRKCÜ   1946 Turkish Muğla 3. Yusuf Kadri KÜRKCÜ   1946 Turkish İzmir 4. Seher Yıldız KÜRKÇÜ ÖZTOP   1949 Turkish Muğla 5. Serap SUVARDAR   1964 Turkish Ankara