CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 octobre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s6108529E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s32ABB12B { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s97028CF8 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s5B8637C { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sB673203C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sD308B0A5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sED1A34C5 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sF74FAE9B { font-family:Arial; font-size:9.5pt } .sD4DA6D70 { height:41.55pt } .s29BE6C23 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s78B6B604 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sCEE978D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC3D571B0 { width:197.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 43362/04 Hidayet GÜMÜŞ against Turkey and 10 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   October 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. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     Certain plots of land belonging to the applicants were designated as part of the public forest area. Subsequently, the applicants and/or the administrative authorities initiated proceedings before the domestic courts. Consequently, title deeds of the applicants were annulled and the plots of land in dispute were registered in the name of the Treasury because the domestic courts found that they were part of the public forest estate or had been formerly, pursuant to Section 2(B) of Law no. 6831. No compensation was awarded to the applicants. 5.     The details of the applications are indicated in the table below.   Application no. and case name Introduction date Details of the land in dispute Date on which the proceedings were initiated Date and no. of the first instance court decision that annulled the title deed to the land Date and no. of the Court of Cassation’s final decision and notification date Articles invoked 43362/04 Gümüş 01/11/2004 Istanbul, Pendik, Emirli Village, Ağılaltı District, Plot No.   10, Parcel No.   738, 4.080 m 2 21/09/2000 16/04/2003 Pendik Civil Court, E: 2000/573 K: 2003/252 02/03/2004 E: 2004/13235 K: 2004/2070 and 06/05/2004 Article 1 of Protocol no.   1 4517/06 Özdemir 21/01/2006 a) Balıkesir, Ayvalık, Bağyüzü Village, Parcel No. 2, 62.400 m 2         b) Balıkesir, Ayvalık, Hacıveliler Village, Parcel No. 129, 237.000 m 2 17/09/2003               06/08/2003 14/07/2004 Ayvalık Civil Court, E: 2003/471 K: 2004/533       14/07/2004 Ayvalık Civil Court, E: 2003/373 K: 2004/520 23/06/2005 E: 2005/5158 K: 2005/8459 and 23/07/2005       23/06/2005 E: 2005/5159 K: 2005/8458 and 23/07/2005 Article 1 of Protocol no.   1; Article 6 §   1; Article   8; Article   13; Article 17   Article 1 of Protocol no.   1   ; Article 6 §   1; Article 8; Article 13; Article 17 25878/07 Öztok 15/06/2007 Çanakkale, Sarıcaeli Village, Köycivarı District Parcel no.772, 16500 m 2 10/05/2006 11/07/2006 Çanakkale Civil Court, E   : 2006/334 K   : 2006/369 20/04/2007 E: 2007/4173 K: 2007/5312 Article 1 of Protocol no.   1; Article 6 § 1; Article 13 48475/07 Anıltaş İthalat İhracat Pazarlama ve Ambalaj Sanayi A.Ş. 15/10/2007 Yalova, Çınarcık, Esenköy Village, Çeşme District, Block No. 4, Parcel No. 2492, 77.077, 26 m 2 26/07/1999 21/06/2005 Yalova Civil Court, E: 2004/37 K: 2005/1426 09/06/2006 E: 2006/5279 K: 2006/8124 and 20/09/2007 Article 1 of Protocol no.   1 54553/07 Gülsün 03/12/2007 Sinop, Durağan, Ötegeçedüzlük District, Block No. 155, Plot No. 46-47 D-A, Parcel No. 1, 172 m 2 28/11/2005 23/06/2006, Durağan Civil Court, E: 2005/97 K: 2006/77 12/06/2007 E: 2007/6677 K: 2007/8023 and 26/09/2007 Article 1 of Protocol no.   1; Article 6 § 1 23258/08 Genç 08/05/2008 Trabzon, Maçka, Ormanüstü Village, Block No. 137, Parcel No. 2, 3.654, 95 m 2 20/11/2002 17/10/2006, Maçka Civil Court, E: 2002/352 K: 2006/258 23/11/2007 E: 2007/13469 K: 2007/15063 and 17/12/2007 Article 1 of Protocol no.   1 36580/08 Kunter 28/07/2008 İstanbul, Silivri, 1. Bölge, Büyükçavuşlu Village, Ahmet Faki District, Parcel no.803, 4900 m 2 24/10/2005 27/12/2006 Silivri Civil Court, E   : 2006/420 K   : 2006/87   25/03/2008 E: 2008/1474 K: 2008/4667 Article 1 of Protocol No.   1; Article 6 47356/08 Tuğtepe and Others 22/09/2008 Kocaeli, Gebze, Pelitli Village, Plot no.77 Parcel no.1692, 10460 m 2 06/10/2004 09/03/2007 Gebze Civil Court, E   : 2007/29 K   : 2007/55 12/02/2008 E: 2007/18424 K: 2008/2078 and 31/03/2008 Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 52368/08 Konuklu 16/10/2008 İstanbul, Silivri, 1.   Bölge, Büyükçavuşlu Village, Sırameşeler District   I- Plot no.3 Parcel nos./m 2 671/ 4081 m 2 672/ 2950 m 2 673/ 2950 m 2   II- Plot no.4 Parcel no.684, 3750 m 2 24/10/2005 28/06/2007 Silivri Civil Court, E   : 2006/287 K   : 2007/332 07/04/2008 E: 2008/3166 K: 2008/5352 and 05/05/2008 Article 1 of Protocol No.   1; Article 6 54187/08 Öztürkcan 04/11/2008 İstanbul, Ümraniye, Ömerli, Plot no.6 Block no.35 Parcel no.19, 4449 m 2 19/01/2004 22/11/2005 Ümraniye Civil Court, E: 2004/54 K: 2005/495 09/04/2008 E: 2008/3303 K: 2008/5690 and 06/05/2008 Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 5400/09 Küçükşen 17/12/2008 İstanbul, Pendik, Emirli Village, Kokoğlu District, Plot No. 5, Parcel No. 825, 4.361,46 m 2 26/03/2004 14/12/2006 Pendik Civil Court, E: 2004/157 K: 2006/527 14/05/2008 E: 2008/3322 K: 2008/7376 and 20/06/2008 Article 1 of Protocol no.   1; Article 6 § 1; Article 14: Article 17 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 Savaşçın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 15661/07, 7 June 2016. COMPLAINTS 7.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they were deprived of their property without receiving any compensation. 8.     In some cases, the applicants raised further complaints relying on Articles 6, 8, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention. THE LAW 9.     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. A.     Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 10.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the annulment of their title deeds without any compensation constituted a disproportionate burden and thus breached their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. 11.     The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established in Turkey to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings, the delayed execution of judgments and the non-execution of judgments. They further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by decrees adopted on 16 March 2014 and 9 March 2016 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged breaches of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of applicants’ title deeds where the land at issue is classified as part of the public forest. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 12.     The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decision in the case of Savaşçın and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 15661/07, 7 June 2016), the Court declared the application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the annulment of the applicants’ title deeds because their land was classified as part of the public forest area. 13.     The Court notes that in its decision in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77), it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of that type which had already been communicated to the Government. 14.     However, taking into account the Government’s preliminary objection with regard to the applicants’ failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Savaşçın and Others , cited above. 15.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applicants’ complaints regarding the annulment of their title deeds should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.     Other Alleged Violations of the Convention 16.     In the applications nos.   4517/06, 25878/07, 54553/07, 36580/08, 52368/08 and 5400/09, the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. However, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court concludes that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, the Court rejects them as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares inadmissible the applications.   Done in English and notified in writing on 17 November 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No Application No Applicant’s name, Date of birth and Place of residence Represented by   43362/04 Hidayet GÜMÜŞ 1929 Istanbul Bilal DAĞTEKİN   4517/06 Önder ÖZDEMİR 15/07/1954 Balıkesir Vincent İŞİTMEZ   25878/07 Mustafa ÖZTOK 10/10/1966 Çanakkale -   48475/07 ANILTAŞ İTHALAT İHRACAT PAZARLAMA VE AMBALAJ SAN A.Ş. Yalova Saadet AYHAN   54553/07 Mahmut GÜLSÜN 3/04/1955 Sinop Zeynel KADAYIFCI   23258/08 Ali Fahri GENÇ 1/02/1928 Trabzon Ahmet Metin GENÇ   36580/08 Ahmet Mithat KUNTER 1/09/1951 İstanbul Ahmet BEKAR   47356/08 Vildan TUĞTEPE 13/03/1951 Kocaeli   Nimet ALPASLAN 25/03/1938 Kocaeli   Huriye GÜLÜMSER 25/12/1919 Kocaeli   Kıymet TUNA 27/11/1944 Kocaeli   Ayten GÜRLEYEN   52368/08 Hasibe KONUKLU 19/04/1942 Diyarbakır Nazif YAVUZ             54187/08 Nahit ÖZTÜRKCAN 5/09/1951 Istanbul Faruk ÖKSÜZ             5400/09 Yusuf KÜÇÜKŞEN 1/1/1933 Leiderdorp Türkan YILMAZ