Communicated on 22 May 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 26660/05 Nıngur NOYANALPAN and others against Turkey lodged on 19 July 2005

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants are Turkish nationals and live in Ankara, Turkey. The application mainly concerns the alleged failure of the national authorities to discharge their obligations to protect the applicants ’ right to respect for private and family life and to comply with domestic courts ’ decisions rendered upon cases lodged by Mr Ayşenur Noyanalpan , Mr İbrahim Ethem Özbakır and Mr Selahattin Yazıcı (the second, sixth and seventh applicants). The applicants live in a residential area where a private hospital is situated since 1998. The hospital ’ s operating licences , granted by administrative authorities, and the master plan allowing for its operation were annulled by a number of court decisions on the ground that such a residential neighbourhood was not suitable for the operation of a hospital. The applicants complain that their health suffered, in particular due to the intolerable levels of noise, and their living environment was damaged as a result of the hospital operating in their neighbourhood and that the administrative authorities failed to enforce the courts ’ judgments ordering the hospital ’ s closure.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Have the first, third, fourth and fifth applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Were the alleged nuisances in the present case sufficient to trigger the authorities ’ positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention? If so, has there been a violation of that Article? In particular, have the State authorities discharged their obligation to protect the applicants ’ right to respect for their private and family lives as well as their homes against the alleged harm caused by the private hospital (see, mutatis mutandis , López Ostra v. Spain , 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; TaÅŸkın and Others v. Turkey , no. 46117/99, §§ 103-126, ECHR 2004 ‑ X; and Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 43449/02 and 21475/04 , 25 November 2010)?

3. Have the domestic courts ’ judgments been executed? If not, has their non-execution constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see TaÅŸkın and Others v. Turkey , no. 46117/99, §§ 127-138, ECHR 2004 ‑ X , and Okyay and Others v. Turkey , no. 36220/97, §§ 70-75, ECHR 2005 ‑ VII?)

APPENDIX