Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
��������� Valeriu Griţco, President, ��������� Arnfinn B�rdsen, ��������� Peeter Roosma, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
The case originated in two applications (nos. 6372/05 and 52543/07) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (�the Convention�) by two Turkish nationals, Mr Kazım Z�lfikari and Mr G�khan Pekcan (�the applicants�), on 11 January 2005 and 26 November 2007 respectively.
In a judgment delivered on 19 March 2019 (�the principal judgment�), the Court joined the applications and held that the interference with the applicants� right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, namely the State�s takeover of their shares in a bank (�Yaşarbank�), could not be considered lawful within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Z�lfikari and Pekcan v. Turkey , nos. 6372/05 and 52543/07, �� 31 and 51-57, 19 March 2019).
Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants sought just satisfaction for the damage they had sustained as a result of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.