Published on 30 October 2023
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 11549/22
Adile Dilek GÜRSOY and Others
against Türkiye
lodged on 24 February 2022
communicated on 10 October 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal of the applicants’ request for restitution of a plot of land (30,000 m2) the Adıyaman Municipality which was expropriated from them in 2008 to build a bus station area.
The applicants claim that the Adıyaman Municipality did not use the plot in accordance with the purpose of the expropriation. They allege that the Adıyaman Municipality abandoned its purpose to build a bus station on the plot of land that was expropriated from them and decided to expropriate another plot of land to build the said bus station in 2010.
The applicants submit that the Adıyaman Municipality left the plot of land unused for more than four years after the expropriation and that, just a few months before their right to reclaim the plot arose in accordance with the five-year time-limit laid down in Article 23 of Law No. 2942 on Expropriation, the municipality signed a rental contract with a company at a very low price to operate an amusement park on a small part of the plot, in order to prevent them from using their right to buy back the plot.
The civil action brought by the applicants was eventually dismissed on the grounds that the plot of land was used in line with a public interest even if the purpose was different from the purpose of the expropriation.
The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In the light of the conclusions reached by the Court in the cases of Motais de Narbonne v. France (no. 48161/99, §§ 16-23, 2 July 2002) and Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino (no. 40786/98, §§ 30-34, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)), did the refusal of the applicants’ request for restitution, as regards the unused part of the plot of land, constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
2. In the light of the conclusions reached by the Court in the cases of Motais de Narbonne v. France (no. 48161/99, §§ 16-23, 2 July 2002) and Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino (no. 40786/98, §§ 30-34, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)), did the refusal of the applicants’ request for restitution, as regards the part of the plot of land used for the amusement park, constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth/registration
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Adile Dilek GÜRSOY
1969
Turkish
Adıyaman
2.
Ruken Ayşe DOST
1979
Turkish
Adıyaman
3.
Sümeyra Adile ELALDI
1977
Turkish
Adıyaman
4.
Yeliz ERTÜRK
1981
Turkish
Adıyaman
5.
Ahmet Bülent GÜRSOY
1968
Turkish
Adıyaman
6.
Atif GÜRSOY
1949
Turkish
Adıyaman
7.
Baran GÜRSOY
1979
Turkish
Adıyaman
8.
Hüseyin Hicri GÜRSOY
1971
Turkish
Adıyaman
9.
İbrahim Suat GÜRSOY
1975
Turkish
Adıyaman
10.
Latif GÜRSOY
1952
Turkish
Antalya
11.
Şeyh Abdurrahman Murat GÜRSOY
1973
Turkish
Adıyaman
12.
Zeliha Meral GÜRSOY
1946
Turkish
Adıyaman
13.
Süheyla ÖZBİLGİN
1948
Turkish
Adıyaman
14.
Ahmet SEVİNÇLİ
1967
Turkish
Adıyaman
15.
Arda SEVİNÇLİ
2002
Turkish
Adıyaman
16.
Ayşe Nilgün TOPRAK
1966
Turkish
Adıyaman
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy