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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { 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. 63846/16 Nazahat ÜLKER against Türkiye and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the refusal by the national authorities to award compensation for damages suffered as a result of village evacuation measures imposed by the authorities on the applicants within the framework of the fight against terrorism in 1994. The applicants requested compensation from the Damage Assessment Commissions (“the Commissions”) for the damages they had suffered during the evacuation of their respective villages in 1994. The applicants’ request was rejected on the sole ground that the applicants had criminal records for terrorism offences (committed before or after 1994). In doing so, the Commissions referred to Article 2(f) of Law No. 5233 on Law on Compensation for Losses Resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism. According to this provision, the compensation scheme does not cover losses suffered by people convicted of aiding and abetting terrorism or of certain terrorist offences if these losses arise from the acts that led to the conviction in question. The applicants brought actions before the Administrative Court for the annulment of the Commissions’ decisions, arguing that there was no link between their conviction and the terrorist acts that led to the evacuation of their villages. The cases were rejected without an examination of a possible causal link between the damages and the convictions on the criminal records of the applicants. Finally, the applicants’ applications to the Constitutional Court were found inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had not been compensated for the damage suffered as a result of the evacuation of their villages and stress that there was no link between the damage and the conviction mentioned in their criminal record. Some of the applicants (applications nos.13754/17 and 25716/17) further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings. Lastly, one of the applicants (application no. 20255/19) complains about a breach of his right to respect for family life and homes under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES COMMON QUESTIONS In the light of the Court’s findings in the case of Doğan and Others v.   Turkey , (nos. 8803/02 and 14 others, §§ 139-56, ECHR   2004-VI (extracts)), has there been a violation of applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention? Did the rejections of the applicants’ compensation claims satisfy the legality and proportionality requirements of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1?   CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS   NOS. 13754/17 AND 25716/17 Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present applications in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96 §   43, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII, and Danespayeh v. Turkey , no. 21086/04 § 26, 16   October 2009)?   CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION   NO.   20255/19 Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see Doğan and Others v. Turkey , cited above, §§   157-60)? APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality   Represented by 1. 63846/16 Ülker v. Türkiye 27/09/2016 Nazahat ÜLKER 1964 Diyarbakır Turkish   Erdem KAYA 2. 13754/17 İnce v. Türkiye 16/01/2017 Ali İhsan İNCE 1958 Istanbul Turkish Mehmet Ali KIRDÖK 3. 25716/17 Güneş v. Türkiye 16/01/2017 Efendi GÜNEŞ 1953 Tunceli Turkish   Mehmet Ali KIRDÖK 4. 73104/17 Çılğın v. Türkiye 18/09/2017 Aydın ÇILĞIN 1966 Istanbul Turkish   Mehmet Ali KIRDÖK 5. 20255/19 Ölçer v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 Abdurrahman ÖLÇER 1944 Istanbul Turkish   Hasip KAPLAN