The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 December 2016 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Valeriu Griţco, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants are Turkish nationals. Their names and birth dates, as well as the names of their representatives, appear in the appendix. In application no. 75193/10, the applicant, Mr Hikmet Kaya died on 14 March 2015 and on 29 June 2016 his heirs, Ms Leman Kaya, Mr Fikret Kaya and Mr Can Kaya indicated their wish to continue the application. 2. The Turkish Government...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 47497/08 Çiğdem ŞARKAYA and Afet SEÇKİN against Turkey and 14 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 December 2016 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Valeriu Griţco, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants are Turkish nationals. Their names and birth dates, as well as the names of their representatives, appear in the appendix. In application no. 75193/10, the applicant, Mr Hikmet Kaya died on 14 March 2015 and on 29 June 2016 his heirs, Ms Leman Kaya, Mr Fikret Kaya and Mr Can Kaya indicated their wish to continue the application. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the cases 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
2 ŞARKAYA AND SEÇKiN v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 4. The applicants all own plots of land. Following local land development plans, their plots of land were designated for public use. Subsequently, complaining about the decrease in the market value of the land and long-term uncertainty about the fate of their plots of land, the applicants initiated compensation proceedings before the civil courts. Their cases were dismissed and as a result they were unable to obtain any redress from the authorities. 5. The details of the applications are set out in the attached table. B. Relevant domestic law and practice 6. A description of the domestic law and practice with respect to the Compensation Commission mentioned below (paragraph 10) may be found in Paksoy and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 19474/10, 7 June 2016). COMPLAINT 7. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as a result of the restrictions imposed on their land, their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been breached. In this connection, they claimed that the restrictions substantially decreased the market value of their land, caused uncertainty and restricted the use of their property. Furthermore, the applicants pointed out that because of the failure of the authorities to compensate them for damage resulting from the said interference, they had to bear an excessive burden. THE LAW 8. The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. 9. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the restriction imposed on their land as a result of the local land develo...