Communicated on 12 October 2017

SECOND SECTION

Applications nos. 8469/12 and 14040/12 Selime ALP against Turkey and Yavuz ALP and Oruç Yasin ALP against Turkey lodged on 27 January 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern compensation proceedings brought by the applicants against the State before the administrative courts. The expert reports taken out during the domestic proceedings assessed the amount of pecuniary damages suffered by the applicants to be higher than the amounts initially claimed by them. Nevertheless the applicants were only awarded the initial amounts indicated in their petition when they had instituted the proceedings. The applicants complain of the impossibility to claim the additional amount of pecuniary damage indicated in the relevant expert reports. They further complain that the default interest applicable to the compensation awarded by the İstanbul Administrative Court was insufficient. The applications raise issues under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the determination of the applicants ’ civil rights satisfy the criteria under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants denied the right of access to a court, in respect of the amount of compensation established in the relevant expert reports (see Fatma Nur Erten and Adnan Erten v. Turkey , no. 14674/11, 25 November 2014)?

2. Concerning the compensation amount awarded to the applicants by the administrative court was the default statutory interest rate sufficient vis ‑ a ‑ vis the inflation rate within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Okçu v. Turkey , no. 39515/03 , §§ 19-32, 21 July 2009)?

The parties are requested to indicate the date when compensation was paid to the applicants as well as the amount and the st atutory interest rates applied.

APPENDIX

Application no. 8469/12

Application no. 14040/12