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.
KARATAŞ v. TURKEY and 8 other applications
Doc ref: 39900/10;40604/10;40656/10;40657/10;40663/10;40666/10;40673/10;40675/10;31351/11 • ECHR ID: 001-175362
Document date: June 12, 2017
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
KARATAŞ v. TURKEY and 8 other applications
Doc ref: 39900/10;40604/10;40656/10;40657/10;40663/10;40666/10;40673/10;40675/10;31351/11 • ECHR ID: 001-175362
Document date: June 12, 2017
Cited paragraphs only
Communicated on 12 June 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 39900/10 Fatma KARATAÅž against Turkey and 8 other applications (see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present group contains 9 applications concerning complaints regarding the restrictions imposed on the applicants ’ plots of land due to the construction of the Birecik Dam.
Claiming that their use of properties was completely restricted since their plots were in the absolute protection zone of the dam in question, and that the main roads leading to their properties had gone under water, the applicants brought compensation actions. They also requested the expropriation of their respective plots pursuant to Article 17 of the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution before the domestic courts.
The domestic courts dismissed the cases on the ground that the applicants had not applied to the relevant administration for the expropriation of their land within the time-period stipulated in Article 5 of the Regulations on Expropriation of Immoval Properties in Construction of Dams prior to lodging their cases.
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they neither obtained the expropriation of their land nor were awarded any compensation in return for the restrictions imposed on their properties. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, they complain that the domestic courts did not make any ruling on their request based on the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution, which does not foresee any kind of prior application within a specified time-limit to the administration.
QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of the applicants ’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to lack of expropriation or compensation for the damages stemming from the restrictions imposed on the applicants ’ properties?
2. Did the proceedings at issue afford the applicants a reasonable opportunity of putting their cases to the relevant authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures interfering with the rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Gereksar and Others v. Turkey , no. 34764/05 and 3 others, 1 February 2011)? In particular, did the domestic courts make any ruling on the applicants ’ expropriation requests based on Article 17 of the Regulations on Control of the Water Pollution?
3. Did the applicants have access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention regarding their complaints based on Article 17 of the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution?
4. Was there any obligation for the applicants to make a prior application within a specified time-limit to the administration prior to lodging their cases before the domestic courts in accordance with Article 17 of the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution?
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Plot No.
Details regarding the actions
39900/10
11/05/2010
Fatma KARATAÅž
01/01/1931
ÅžANLIURFA
Ferruh ÇAPAN
80/2
On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case.
(E:2009/141, K:2009/219)
On 8 December 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court ’ s judgment.
(E:2009/14110, K:2009/17222)
40604/10
20/05/2010
YaÅŸar ALAKUÅž
01/01/1963
ÅžANLIURFA
Ferruh ÇAPAN
82/20
On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case.
(E:2009/439, K:2009/214)
On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court ’ s judgment.
(E:2009/14102, K:2009/15907)
40656/10
20/05/2010
YaÅŸar ALAKUÅž
01/01/1963
ÅžANLIURFA
Ferruh ÇAPAN
82/30
On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case.
(E:2009/40, K:2009/215)
On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court ’ s judgment.
(E:2009/14100,
K:2009/15910)
40657/10
20/05/2010
Yasin KARAOÄžLU
16/10/1952
ÅžANLIURFA
Ferruh ÇAPAN
84/36
On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case.
(E:2008/304, K:2009/159)
On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court ’ s judgment.
(E:2009/14105, K:2009/16559)
40663/10
20/05/2010
Yasin KARAOÄžLU
16/10/1952
ÅžANLIURFA
Mehmet KARAOÄžLU
01/07/1937
GAZÄ°ANTEP
Ferruh ÇAPAN
83/1
On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case.
(E:2009/138, K:2009/216)
On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court ’ s judgment.
(E:2009/14099, K:2009/15906)
40666/10
20/05/2010
Fatma KARATAÅž
01/01/1931
ÅžANLIURFA
Salih AKBAÅž
06/03/1941
Ä°ZMÄ°R
Ferruh ÇAPAN
84/71
On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case.
(E:2009/140, 2009/218)
On 8 December 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court ’ s judgment.
(E:2009/14108, K:2009/17223)
40673/10
20/05/2010
Naime ÖZDEMİR
01/01/1932
GAZÄ°ANTEP
Ferruh ÇAPAN
80/3
On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case.
(E:2009/38, K:2009/213)
On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court ’ s judgment.
(E:2009/14106, K:2009/15909)
40675/10
20/05/2010
Ömer KUTLU
01/01/1956
ÅžANLIURFA
Emine Yıldız TOKSÖZ
01/01/1951
ÅžANLIURFA
Ayniziliha TURAN
04/02/1947
ÅžANLIURFA
Zübeyde YEŞİLDAĞ
15/08/1964
ÅžANLIURFA
Edibe ÇOBANOĞLU
29/11/1961
GAZÄ°ANTEP
Hakkı TOKSÖZ
01/01/1982
ÅžANLIURFA
İbrahim Halil ÇOBANOĞLU
20/04/1986
ÅžANLIURFA
Ferruh ÇAPAN
80/13
On 28 May 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case.
(E:2009/142, K:2009/220)
On 16 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court ’ s judgment.
(E:2009/14103, K:2009/15908)
31351/11
11/01/2011
Abdo CAN
01/01/1932
ÅžANLIURFA
Adile GÃœZEL
01/01/1933
GAZÄ°ANTEP
Hasan CAN
01/01/1941
ÅžANLIURFA
Mehmet CAN
01/01/1950
ÅžANLIURFA
Fidan KÖROĞLU
01/01/1941
ÅžANLIURFA
ReÅŸit CAN
01/01/1955
ÅžANLIURFA
Ferruh ÇAPAN
495On 2 July 2009 the Halfeti Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case.
(E:2009/237, K:2009/373)
On 15 December 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court ’ s judgment.
(E:2009/17546, K:2009/17936)
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
