CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 juillet 1998

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                          Application No. 30491/96                        by Sadik DURAK                        against Turkey          The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:              MM     J.-C. GEUS, President                  M.A. NOWICKI                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs    G.H. THUNE            MM     F. MARTINEZ                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  A. ARABADJIEV              Ms     M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber          Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 11 December 1995 by Sadik Durak against Turkey and registered on 19 March 1996 under file No. 30491/96;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant, born in 1960, is a Turkish citizen and resident in Van. He is represented before the Commission by Mr Mehmet Mizrak, a lawyer practising in Van.        The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:        On 13 November 1990, in proceedings concerning the registration of certain plots of land, the Van Land Registry Court ordered that a plot of land be registered as being owned by the applicant. On 23 January 1992 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.        On 16 March 1993 the applicant brought an action against the Treasury before the Van Civil Court of General Jurisdiction (Van Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi). He claimed that the registers should be amended so as to show more land as belonging to him.        On 11 November 1994 the Van Civil Court of General Jurisdiction dismissed the applicant's case. The court considered that the applicant's case could not be re-examined as the Van Land Registry Court's judgment of 13 November 1990 constituted res judicata.        On 9 December 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation.        On 10 February 1995 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of 11 November 1994.        On 27 March 1995 the applicant applied to the Court of Cassation for rectification of its decision.        On 18 May 1995 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's request for rectification. The Court of Cassation's decision was served on the applicant on 30 August 1995.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he was deprived of his property as the national courts, in the proceedings which ended on 30 August 1995, refused to amend the land register so as to show more land as belonging to him.     THE LAW        The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention that he was deprived of his property as the national courts, in the proceedings which ended on 30 August 1995, refused to amend the land register so as to show more land as belonging to him.        Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), in so far as relevant, provides:        "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful      enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his      possessions except in the public interest and subject to the      conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of      international law..."        The Commission must consider whether the national courts' refusal to re-examine the applicant's case amounted to a deprivation of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.        The Commission recalls that the deprivation of property referred to in the second sentence of this provision is primarily concerned with the formal expropriation of assets for public purposes, and not with the registration of land which is in dispute between two parties (cf., mutatis mutandis, No. 10000/82, Dec. 4.7.83, D.R. 33, p. 257).        In the present case, the Commission observes that the applicant brought an action against the Treasury before the Van Civil Court of General Jurisdiction seeking to have the land registers amended so as to show more land as belonging to him. However, his request was rejected by the court as there existed an earlier judicial decision concerning the relevant registration which constituted res judicata. Accordingly, the court's refusal to re-examine the case did not involve any deprivation of the applicant's possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.        It makes no difference in this respect that the applicant's adversary in the proceedings was the Treasury and thus a State institution. In any event, the Treasury was merely acting as a private law party in civil litigation, and a court's decision as to who of two litigants is the owner of certain property according to the rules of private law can never be seen as constituting an unjustified State interference with the property rights of the losing party, as it is the very function of the courts to determine such disputes (cf. No. 10000/82, Dec. 4.7.83, loc. cit.)        It follows that the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.        M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               J.-C. GEUS       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber