Communicated on 12 June 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 39900/10
Fatma KARATAŞ 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 KARATAŞ
01/01/1931
ŞANLIURFA
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
Yaşar ALAKUŞ
01/01/1963
ŞANLIURFA
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
Yaşar ALAKUŞ
01/01/1963
ŞANLIURFA
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 KARAOĞLU
16/10/1952
ŞANLIURFA
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 KARAOĞLU
16/10/1952
ŞANLIURFA
Mehmet KARAOĞLU
01/07/1937
GAZİANTEP
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 KARATAŞ
01/01/1931
ŞANLIURFA
Salih AKBAŞ
06/03/1941
İZMİR
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
GAZİANTEP
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
ŞANLIURFA
Emine Yıldız TOKSÖZ
01/01/1951
ŞANLIURFA
Ayniziliha TURAN
04/02/1947
ŞANLIURFA
Zübeyde YEŞİLDAĞ
15/08/1964
ŞANLIURFA
Edibe ÇOBANOĞLU
29/11/1961
GAZİANTEP
Hakkı TOKSÖZ
01/01/1982
ŞANLIURFA
İbrahim Halil ÇOBANOĞLU
20/04/1986
ŞANLIURFA
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
ŞANLIURFA
Adile GÜZEL
01/01/1933
GAZİANTEP
Hasan CAN
01/01/1941
ŞANLIURFA
Mehmet CAN
01/01/1950
ŞANLIURFA
Fidan KÖROĞLU
01/01/1941
ŞANLIURFA
Reşit CAN
01/01/1955
ŞANLIURFA
Ferruh ÇAPAN
495
On 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)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy