Communicated on 13 December 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 9976/13 Mehmet İZK İ and Şükrüye İZGİ against Turkey lodged on 21 December 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the deduction of part of the applicants ’ land by the administration as “contribution to planning costs” ( düzenleme ortaklık payı ) which allegedly exceeded the limits set forth by the relevant legislation.

A certain part of the applicants ’ land (59.7% of the total area) was taken as contribution to planning costs. That deduction was later found to be unlawful by the domestic court as it was more than the margin indicated in the relevant legislation, namely section 18 of the Zoning Act. Subsequently, the municipal committee ( belediye encümeni ) issued a decision, giving certain parts of the land back to the applicants. Finding that the reimbursement made to them did not cover the actual deduction initially made, the applicants initiated a second set of proceedings. The administrative court dismissed their case, holding that the plots given to the applicants for the execution of the first judgment were equal to the deducted area in value.

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain that the judgment in their favour had not been fully enforced and that they had been deprived of their property due to the disproportionate deduction.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. As a result of the parcelling acts dating back to 2004, how much of the applicants ’ land was deducted in total by the administration as “contribution to planning costs”? What were the rates for contribution of planning costs determined by the administration in the course of the parcelling acts in question (see Göksel Tütün Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 32600/03, § 22-35, 22 September 2009)?

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? In particular, was the deduction made from their property by the administration for “contribution to planning costs” in line with the limits stipulated in section 18 of the Zoning Act?

Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants, taking account of the lack of compensation awarded to them for the deduction exceeding the legal limit?

2. Have the requirements of the Konya Administrative Court ’ s judgment (file no. 2004/221E and 2004/1516K) been duly fulfilled by the Municipality? If not, has the non-execution of the respective judgment given rise to a breach of their rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Çakır and Others v. Turkey , no. 25747/09, 4 June 2013)?

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 .

- Nasuh Ä°ZG Ä°

- Ali Ä°ZKÄ°

- Alime YİĞİTBAŞI

- Emine ÖZTOPBAŞ

- Nasuh Ä°ZKÄ°

- Cihan Ä°ZKÄ°

- Fatma ACAR

- Şükrüye AKIN