CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sC1A87EE6 { width:109.9%; border-collapse:collapse } .s9E18DD01 { width:7.1%; 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 } .sC83B968F { width:31.46%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB152BE8 { width:24.56%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6EBE336E { width:19.32%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDDE1008B { width:17.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8641AEF8 { width:7.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s96AD26A3 { width:31.46%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC49527E1 { width:24.56%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDB8797F3 { width:19.32%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF724F47 { width:17.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 3 November 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5970/19 Mustafa BİLGE and Others against Türkiye lodged on 7 January 2019 communicated on 13 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the de facto expropriation of a plot of land jointly owned by the applicants. On 25 July 2014 the applicants brought compensation proceedings before the Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance against the General Directorate of Highways concerning the de facto expropriation of a plot of land they jointly owned. The Civil Court found that the defendant administration had de facto occupied the property in question by constructing a road without conducting a proper expropriation procedure, thereby depriving the applicants of the ability to dispose of the property. Consequently, it ordered that compensation for the de facto expropriation be paid to the applicants in proportion to their shares, together with “statutory interest” accruing from the date they brought the proceedings. The Civil Court’s decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 9 November 2015. Subsequently, the applicants lodged an individual application with the Turkish Constitutional Court, alleging, inter alia , that the expropriation of their plot of land without following the procedure provided for by law, in itself, constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and that the application of the “statutory rate” to their claims –   rather than the maximum interest rate applicable to public debts, which is normally applied in lawful expropriation proceedings   – also amounted to a violation of that provision. On 2 November 2018 the Constitutional Court dismissed their application as inadmissible on the grounds that it was manifestly ill-founded. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention the applicants complain before the Court that the de facto expropriation of their plot of land, as well as the interest rate applied to the expropriation compensation, constitute violations of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the de facto expropriation of their land   (see Sarıca and Dilaver v. Turkey , no. 11765/05, §§ 38-52, 27 May 2010)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, on account of the loss of value suffered by the applicants as a result of the interest rate applied to the expropriation compensation ( see Sarıca and Dilaver , cited above, §§ 49-50, and Yetiş and   Others v. Turkey , no. 40349/05, §§ 41-56, 6 July 2010)?   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Mustafa BİLGE 1929 Turkish Ankara 2. Necla ALPAY 1957 Turkish Ankara 3. Erkan BİLGE 1966 Turkish Ankara 4. Kenan BİLGE 1966 Turkish Ankara 5. Melihat GÖR 1949 Turkish Ankara 6. Özlem ULUSOY 1950 Turkish Ankara 7. Nesrin YÜCEL 1959 Turkish Balıkesir 8. Adnan ZENGİN 1963 Turkish Ankara 9. Berrin ZENGİN 1969 Turkish Ankara 10. Hatice Nesrin ZENGİN 1960 Turkish Ankara