Communicated on 15 June 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 58945/12
EMVAK KONUT YAPI KOOPERATİFİ
against Turkey
lodged on 20 June 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged infringement of the applicant cooperative housing society’s property rights on account of the overhead power lines running above the land owned by it. The applicant cooperative housing society has not been able to obtain any compensation in return for the servitude created over its land by the power lines.
The case mainly raises issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as to whether the instalment of overhead power lines above the applicant cooperative housing society’s land, without the payment of any compensation in return, amounted to a breach of the applicant’s property rights.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Does the servitude (irtifak hakkı) created over the applicant cooperative housing society’s property by virtue of the instalment of power lines without the payment of any compensation or other benefits amount to a violation of its right to property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
2. What is the meaning of the term “proceeds from the servitude area” (irtifak alanının getirisi) used by the Sincan Civil Court of First Instance in its judgment and what comprises such proceeds? Did the Sincan Civil Court of First Instance impose the burden of submitting evidence as regards the proceeds of the servitude area on the applicant alone, without seeking any expert opinion in that regard? If so, did that constitute a disproportionate burden on the applicant that upset the fair balance between the parties?
3. Were the proceedings before the Sincan Civil Court of First Instance capable of providing the applicant with redress in respect of its complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In that connection, have the material facts that form the subject matter of the case been duly established by the Sincan Civil Court of First Instance as required under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, for instance, Gereksar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 34764/05 and 3 others, § 54, 1 February 2011)? Moreover, have the domestic courts duly responded to the applicant’s contention regarding the alleged controversy between the material findings of the Sincan Civil Court of First Instance and those of the experts?
4. Was BEDAŞ (Başkent Elektrik Dağıtım A.Ş.), the electricity distribution company responsible for the operation of the overhead power lines in question, a public company at the time of the events giving rise to the present application?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy