Communicated on 7 September 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 50440/17 Mehmet KARABULUT and O thers against Turkey lodged on 25 May 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the de facto expropriation of the applicants ’ land and the domestic courts ’ failure to assess their requests for the amendment ( ı slah ) of the interest rate, which would be applied to the main compensation amount awarded to them.

During the course of the proceedings brought by the applicants against the administration, the applicants amended their initial claims for both the main amount and the interest rate, on the basis of an expert report. However, although the domestic court accepted their request for the amendment of the main amount, it refused to do the same for the interest rate, pointing out that interest rates were not subject to amendment. The Court of Cassation quashed that judgment on the grounds raised by the administration, without indicating anything as regards the applicants ’ amendment request. In line with that decision, the first-instance court calculated a new amount of compensation, once again without assessing the applicants ’ request. In its subsequent decision, the Court of Cassation rejected the arguments raised by the applicants in their appeal. In doing so, the high court noted that while the applicants indeed had the right to request the amendment of the interest rate, their request could not be granted as the first decision quashing the initial judgment did not mention that point, which provided the other party - the administration - with an acquired procedural right ( usuli kazanılmış hak ).

The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the Court of Cassation ’ s failure to address the applicants ’ request for amendment of the interest rate in its decision dated 27 June 2011 cause prejudice to the applicants ’ right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the high court ’ s subsequent decision dated 22 April 2014, which noted that the applicants ’ claim could not be examined as a result of its previous decision establishing an acquired procedural right in favour of the administration, so formalistic as to deny the applicants their right of access to court, implicitly guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

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 to the Convention, as a result of the de facto expropriation of their land and the calculation of the compensation awarded to them (see, mutatis mutandis , Sarıca and Dilaver v. Turkey , no. 11765/05, 27 May 2010) ?

In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

APPENDIX

1. Mehmet KARABULUT is a Turkish national who was born in 1930, lives in Elazığ and is represented by A. Altan

2. Şehmir KARABULUT is a Turkish national who was born in 1929, lives in Elazığ and is represented by A. Altan

3. Mehmet Ali KARABULUT is a Turkish national who was born in 1927, lives in Elazığ and is represented by A. Altan