I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in UYSAL v. TURKEY.


  • Judgment date: 2022-03-08
  • Communication date: 2018-09-24
  • Application number(s): 44502/14
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): P1-1, P1-1-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
  • Result: Violation

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.515372
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The application mainly concerns the applicant’s deprivation of his property without any compensation in return for the expropriation of his land.
The administration initiated expropriation negotiations with the applicant for the assignment of part of his land.
They agreed on expropriation on the condition that the administration would obtain the applicant’s land at a symbolic price and would, in exchange, make a change in the zoning plan in respect of the remaining land in order to make it eligible for the construction of a gas station.
Following the consensus, the applicant’s property was transferred to the Istanbul Municipality.
However the administration did not make the changes in the zoning plan, contrary to its previous commitment.
The applicant introduced a case for the annulment of the land’s registration on the administration and claimed compensation for de facto expropriation.
The Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction accepted the applicant’s compensation request, however; dismissed his claim for the annulment of the registration, finding that the deducted part of the property constituted a road.
The Court of Cassation quashed that judgment, considering the impugned deduction in the applicant’s land as contribution to planning costs (düzenleme ortaklık payı), for which no payment of compensation is required.
On 28 June 2013 the Constitutional Court found the applicant’s individual application inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.
The applicant alleges that he was deprived of his property without having been compensated, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the Convention.