LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
KÜÇÜK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 46852/09 • ECHR ID: 001-189937
Document date: January 15, 2019
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
KÜÇÜK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 46852/09 • ECHR ID: 001-189937
Document date: January 15, 2019
Cited paragraphs only
Communicated on 15 January 2019
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 46852/09 Bahattin KÜÇÜK and others against Turkey lodged on 17 August 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application mainly concerns the domestic authorities ’ refusal to return the applicants ’ land, which had been expropriated in 1944 for the purposes of an airport construction and which had not been used in line with that purpose afterwards.
During the proceedings they brought for the annulment of the expropriation decision and to obtain compensation, the applicants argued that they had never been informed in any way about the expropriation procedure and that the land in question had never been used for purposes which constituted the basis of the expropriation. Their case was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on procedural grounds.
The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants have a "legitimate expectation" for the restitution of their property, taking into account Articles 22 or 23 of the Expropriation Act No. 2942, as interpreted by the courts? ( see , mutatis mutandis , Kemp and Others v. Luxembourg , no. 17140/05, 24 April 2008)?
2. Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
(a) Did the applicants receive compensation for the expropriation of their properties? If not, did this situation place an undue burden on them (see Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 110, 25 October 2012)?
(b) Given the use currently being made of the property, was the expropriation based on a public interest ground within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Keçecioğlu and Others v. Turkey , no. 37546/02, 8 April 2008)?
(c) Having regard to the State ’ s positive obligation to ensure in its domestic legal system that property rights are sufficiently protected by law, were the applicants afforded a reasonable opportunity of challenging effectively the measures depriving them of their right to property (see Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece , no. 44769/07, 5 November 2009)?
(d) Taking account of the reasoning of the domestic courts in dismissing their case, were the applicants provided with adequate procedural guarantees for their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Gereksar and Others v. Turkey , nos. 34764/05 and 3 others , 1 February 2011)?
3. In view of the applicants ’ inability to challenge the expropriation decision before the repeal of Law no. 3887 and the domestic court ’ s decision regarding the use of the expropriated land in 1998, has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the Supreme Administrative Court ’ s dismissal of their case on procedural grounds (see Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte , cited above) ?
The Government are invited to provide the Court with case-law examples in this matter.
4. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Supreme Administrative Court provide sufficient reasoning, taking account of the applicants ’ arguments as regards the applicability of Law no. 2942 in their case (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC] , no. 19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017)?
The parties are invited to provide the Court with an expert report, preferably judicial, on the value of the property at issue. The report should point out all the objective criteria it relies on in reaching its conclusions.
LIST OF APPLICANTS
No.
Firstname LASTNAME
Birth year
Nationality
Place of residence
Representatives
Bahattin KÜÇÜK
1947Turkish
Ä°zmir
Denizer ÅžANLI
Erol SARAÇOĞLU
Murat YAVUZ
Melek AVCI
1950Turkish
Ä°zmir
Mürüvet Şenay ÇINAROĞLU
1944Turkish
Ä°zmir
Orhan ERSANLI
1931Turkish
Ä°zmir
Emine GAYIR
1937Turkish
Ä°zmir
Ä°smet GÃœLDEMÄ°R
1950Turkish
Bolu
Ayhan Ä°ZMÄ°R
1939Turkish
Ä°zmir
Cengiz Ä°ZMÄ°R
1957Turkish
Ä°zmir
Nursel KARA
1960Turkish
Ä°zmir
Havva KARADAÄž
1953Turkish
Ä°zmir
Fatma KAYA
1923Turkish
Ä°zmir
Ayten KAYAKUÅž
1941Turkish
Ä°zmir
Nesrin KOCAORMAN
1964Turkish
Ä°zmir
Hatice KÜÇÜK
1925Turkish
Ä°zmir
Mehmet KÜÇÜK
1943Turkish
Ä°zmir
Hacer BELHAN
1975Turkish
Ä°zmir
Mehmet MERMERCÄ°OÄžLU
1977Turkish
Ä°zmir
Ayşe ÖNDER
1948Turkish
Ä°zmir
Mehmet SARGIN
1936Turkish
Ä°zmir
Şerefnaz SÖNMEZ
1953Turkish
Ä°zmir
Aligalip TUÄžAN
1942Turkish
Ä°zmir
Nilgün TUĞAN
1947Turkish
Ä°zmir
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
