Communicated on 29 November 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 6792/10
Ethem TAVACIOĞLU
against Turkey
lodged on 6 January 2010
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case concerns the application of a thirty day statutory time-limit to challenge the amount of the compensation determined by the administration following the expropriation of the applicant’s plot of land in Istanbul.
In 1979 the General Directorate of the State Property (Arsa Ofisi Genel Müdürlüğü) decided to expropriate the disputed plot of land and determined the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant. In 1982, as the authorities could not locate the applicant’s address in Istanbul, the decision concerning the expropriation was published in a newspaper pursuant to the now defunct Expropriation Law (Law no. 6830).
In 2005 the applicant initiated proceedings claiming compensation for de facto expropriation. The domestic court concluded that the thirty day time‑limit should be calculated as of 1982. The case was thus dismissed due to non‑compliance with that statutory time-limit.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that although he was abroad at the relevant time, the expropriation decision had not been served to his address in Istanbul that he had indicated to the tax authorities in 1981. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had not received any compensation for the expropriation of his land.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention?
In particular, in the light of the relevant case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, § 80-87, 4 March 2014) and having regard to the document submitted by the applicant indicating that he gave an address in Istanbul to the tax authorities, did the national authorities take necessary measures to inform him of the expropriation decision?
2. Having regard to the fact that the applicant could not challenge the amount of the expropriation compensation determined by the administration, has there been an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, in the light of the Court’s judgment in the case of Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece (no. 44769/07, §§ 36-37, 5 November 2009), did the national authorities strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s right to property?
3. Did the administration make any payment to the applicant for the expropriation of his land? If not, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to being deprived of his property without receiving any compensation (see, Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 110, 25 October 2012)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy