Communicated on 5 September 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 57031/12 Suna DEN Ä° ZC Ä° against Turkey lodged on 20 July 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application essentially concerns the financial loss suffered by the applicant as a result of the domestic courts ’ refusal to update the amount awarded at the end of the proceedings which lasted approximately 26 years.

In 1987 the applicant brought an action for abatement ( tenkis davası ) against her stepmother, claiming that she had been deprived of her reserved portion ( saklı pay ) in the inheritance because of her father ’ s legal transactions, prior to his death, in favour of her stepmother.

In 2012 the domestic court determined the value in 1987 of the loss suffered by the applicant because of the partial deprivation of her reserved portion and ordered the applicant ’ s stepmother to pay the applicant that amount with a statutory interest running from 1987.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complains that the amount awarded in return for her deprived reserved portion depreciated considerably in value (approximately 99%) due to the prolonged procedure, and that the domestic courts refused to update that amount by ignoring the effects of inflation.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to the considerable depreciation in value of the compensation, with which she was awarded?

2. In the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the length of the proceedings ( see a contrario , Grozeva v. Bulgaria ( dec. ), no. 52788/99 , 3 November 2005, and Köksal v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 30253/06 , § 39, 26 November 2013), does Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 impose upon the State a positive obligation to organise the domestic legislation and the judicial system in order to allow recovery of the real value of the applicant ’ s claim?

If yes, has this obligation been respected?

In this context, was the action on additional compensation ( munzam zarar davası ) based on Article 105 of the Code of Obligations an effective remedy in respect of the applicant ’ s grievances as to the depreciation of the awarded amounts in value due to prolonged procedures, especially in the actions of abatement?

If so, the Government are invited to submit examples of judicial decisions rendered in comparable situations and showing the effectiveness of this remedy. Moreover, the Parties are invited to submit information on the Court of Cassation ’ s case-law related to the calculation of time-limits in actions based on the previously mentioned Article 105.