Communicated on 11 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 65918/17 Abdülkadir İSTEM İ L and Others against Turkey lodged on 2 August 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the restrictions on the applicants ’ use of their property due to the expropriation of their plot of land to establish a public easement ( irtifak kamulaştırması ) in favour of BOTAŞ (a public economic enterprise), in order to construct a natural gas pipeline.

In 2006 BOTAÅž lodged an action against the applicants before the Hilvan Civil Court, requesting the registration of the property in its name and the determination of the expropriation value.

After having delivered three judgments, all of which were quashed by the Court of Cassation, in 2014 the Hilvan Civil Court awarded the applicants 135,665 Turkish liras (TRY), plus statutory interest. That judgment became final by a decision of the Court of Cassation in 2016.

The Constitutional Court found the applicants ’ individual application inadmissible, holding that the expropriation for easement instead of expropriation in whole had been proportionate to the general interest pursued.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, the applicants complain of the restrictions imposed on their use of the property on account of the expropriation for easement and the authorities ’ failure to expropriate their land in whole. In that connection they argue that although they have been awarded compensation for the part of the land which was subject to easement expropriation, they no longer had access to their property due to the security lane established on it, which was not expropriated. They further complain of the amount of the compensation awarded by the domestic courts, arguing that the decrease in the value of the property was miscalculated.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

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 expropriation of their land for easement and the compensation awarded to them in that regard (see, mutatis mutandis , Kutlu and Others v. Turkey , no. 51861/11, 13 December 2016)?

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant ’ s Name

Year of birth/registration

Nationality

Place of residence

1.Abdülkadir İSTEMİL

1960Turkish

Şanlıurfa

2.Ä°brahim Halil Ä°STEMÄ°L

1965Turkish

Şanlıurfa

3.Ramazan Ä°STEMÄ°L

1963Turkish

Şanlıurfa

4.Süleyman İSTEMİL

1969Turkish

Şanlıurfa

5.Emin PERTAV

1956Turkish

Şanlıurfa

6.Mehmet Ali PERTAV

1965Turkish

Şanlıurfa

7.Mehmet Cevher PERTAV

1972Turkish

Şanlıurfa