CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 octobre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 167 October 2013 Hüseyin Kaplan v. Turkey - 24508/09 Judgment 1.10.2013 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Restrictions on use of land assigned to public authority 20   years before its expropriation: violation   Facts – Since 1982 the applicant’s land had been assigned to a public authority and the land register had been amended accordingly. The land, which was initially classified as meadow, was reclassified as building land in 1991 and was designated in the urban development plan for the construction of a technical and professional college. More than twenty years passed without the authorities had either beginning construction of the college or expropriating the applicant’s land. In September 2007 the court dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages against the authorities, on the ground that the municipality had not taken possession of the disputed land and that the applicant had not provided evidence of the alleged pecuniary damage. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed. Law – Article 1 of Protocol No.   1: There had been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The situation had indisputably restricted his ability to dispose of the land, although without a formal deprivation of property, since the applicant’s title remained intact in law. He had not been denied access to the land or lost control of it and, in principle, he could still sell the property, although with greater difficulty. However, since its allocation to a public authority in 1982, the land had been subject to certain constraints. Under the urban development plan, its initial classification as a meadow had been changed to that of building land in 1991 and a prohibition on building on the land, which was due to be expropriated, had been in force continuously since the land was designated for use as a school under the urban development plan. In such a complex and difficult sphere as urban development, the Contracting States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in order to implement their town-planning policy. The interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions satisfied the requirements of the general interest. Nonetheless, throughout the period concerned, the applicant was left in a state of total uncertainty as to the future of his property. On 20   March 2013 his property had still not been expropriated. That state of affairs had impeded the his full enjoyment of his right of property, as he could neither build on the land designated as building land nor even plant trees on it. In addition, this situation had adversely affected him, inter alia , by reducing decreased his prospects of selling the land. Finally, no compensation had been granted for his loss. Thus, the applicant had had to bear an individual and excessive burden, which had upset the fair balance that should be maintained between the demands of the general interest on the one hand and protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions on the other. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: question reserved.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes