Communicated on 11 July 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 5854/10
Emine ÖZDEMIR against Turkey
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present group contains 4 applications concerning complaints regarding the legal and physical 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 actions and requested the expropriation of their respective plots before the domestic courts pursuant to Article 17 of the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution.
Relying on expert reports, which indicated that the value of their losses ranged from 18% to 40%, the domestic courts awarded each applicant a certain amount of compensation corresponding to the damage suffered, but did not order the expropriation of their respective plots of land.
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that despite the restrictions imposed on their properties, the domestic courts’ refusal to expropriate them constitute a violation of their right to property. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, they further complain that the domestic courts did not make any ruling on their request based on the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution, which foresees the expropriation of the properties located in the absolute protection zone of the dams.
QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES
1. In the light of the Court’s judgement of Kutlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 51861/11, 13 December 2016), 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 the restrictions imposed on the applicants’ respective plots of land?
2. In the light of the domestic law, in particular under Article 17 of the Regulations on Control of Water Pollution, did the applicants have a right to expropriation of their property? If so, did the fact that the domestic courts awarded the applicants a certain amount of compensation instead of ordering the expropriation of their plots of land, constitute a violation of applicants’ right to property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
3. 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 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (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 Water Pollution?
APPENDIX
List of applications
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
5854/10
11/01/2010
Emine ÖZDEMİR
01/01/1934
Şanlıurfa
Ferruh ÇAPAN
5877/10
11/01/2010
İsmail Hakkı ERDOĞAN
01/05/1952
Halfeti
Ferruh ÇAPAN
5886/10
11/01/2010
Hadice KANDAMAR
01/07/1931
Halfeti
Mustafa UYAN
02/08/1944
İskenderun
Hasan UYAN
02/05/1946
İskenderun
Hüseyin UYAN
27/04/1956
İskenderun
Nuriye UYAN
03/12/1952
İskenderun
Fehime YARDIMCI
16/07/1951
İskenderun
Ferruh ÇAPAN
18471/11
07/01/2011
Ayşe KARAKUŞ
12/08/1941
Şanlıurfa
Mehmet Ali ALKESEN
28/07/1944
Şanlıurfa
Muhiddin DALKESEN
01/07/1933
Şanlıurfa
Ahmet DALKESEN
19/10/1947
Şanlıurfa
Hadice TOKSÖZ
24/12/1959
Şanlıurfa
Salih DALKESEN
01/01/1954
Şanlıurfa
Mehmet DALKESEN
01/01/1952
Şanlıurfa
Ferruh ÇAPAN
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy