CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 octobre 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 23 April 2019 and on 17 November 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40608/16 Pembe Jale Oktay against Türkiye lodged on 2 July 2016 communicated on 2 April 2019 and 31 October 2025     The Subject matter of the case and Questions to the parties is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the fact that the applicant, as a member of the board, approved all the allegedly fraudulent loans in 1998, whereas Law   No.   4389, which was considered the basis for the applicant’s liability, only came into force later in 1999, was the interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions lawful and proportionate, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention (see Maurice v.   France [GC], no. 11810/03, § 89, ECHR 2005-IX; Maggio and Others v.   Italy , nos.   46286/09 and 4 others, § 60, 31 May 2011; Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy , nos. 48357/07 and 3 others, §   104, 24   June 2014; and Tokel v. Turkey , no. 23662/08, § 76, 9 February 2021)?   2.     What is the legal regime applicable under Turkish law for holding a member of a bank’s board responsible for the approval of certain allegedly fraudulent loans, in particular regarding the rules on joint and/or several liability where multiple persons have jointly caused damage? In this connection, was the application of this regime to the applicant consistent with the proportionality requirement under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, according to this regime, does the applicant have the possibility to have recourse against the other potentially liable persons under the Law of Obligations or other relevant domestic legislation?   3.     In view of the fact that the reports establishing the applicant’s responsibility for the approval of the loans were drawn up in 2000, whereas the applicant was only invited to make payment and subsequently ordered to pay the impugned damages in 2011, can the interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions be regarded as consistent with the proportionality requirement under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?