CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 mars 2017

.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 } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s1F74756B { height:59.15pt } .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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s64DF07F { height:98.95pt } .sB30C44B0 { 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; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { 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; vertical-align:top } .s7ACE45A8 { height:296.7pt } .s546C9D04 { 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; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { 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; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s4F2EDFF { 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; vertical-align:top }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application nos. 25631/09 and 26315/11 Ayşe GÜLER and Others against Turkey and Kahraman BULUT and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14   March 2017 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 13 April 2009 and 14   December 2010 respectively, 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.     In application no. 25631/09, one of the applicants, namely Ms Ayşe Güler died on 4 June 2012. On 9 December 2016 her heirs, Ms Nurhan Güler (Kayatürk), Ms Nurcan Güler (Hiştik) and Ms   Aycan Güler (Çetindağ) applied to continue the application in her stead. 3.     In application no. 26315/11, two of the applicants, namely Mr Atilla Bulut and Mr Mehmet Bulut died on 9 November 2009 and 30 September 2014 respectively. On 7 December 2016 their heirs, Ms   Gülnihal Bulut, Ms   Hülya Alptekin, Mr   Kemal Bulut, Ms   Ayla Karadağ, Ms   Gülseren Kaplan, Mr   İdris Bulut, Ms   Nihayet Bulut, Mr   Ozan Bulut, Ms   Demet Bulut and Mr   Muhammed Bilal Bulut indicated their wish to continue the application. 4.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the cases 5.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.     The applicants 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 and sought compensation. Their cases were dismissed and as a result they were unable to obtain any redress from the authorities. 7.     The details of the applications are set out in the attached table. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 8.     A description of the domestic law and practice with respect to the Compensation Commission (see paragraph 12 below) may be found in Paksoy and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 19474/10, 7 June 2016). COMPLAINT 9.     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 10.     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. 11.     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 development plans constituted a disproportionate burden and thus breached their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. 12.     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 applicants’ inability to use their land as a result of restrictions imposed by the local land development plans. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 13.     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 Paksoy and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 19474/10, 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 restrictions imposed on the applicants’ land because their land was designated for public use by local land development plan. 14.     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. 15.     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 Paksoy and Others (cited above). 16.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applicants’ complaints should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 6 April 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   Application no. and case name Introduction date The Applicant’s name and date of birth   Name of the Representative Details of the land in dispute and the date on which the restriction was imposed on the land Date and no. of the first instance court decision that rejected the applicant’s claim Date and no. of the final decision, and date of the notification 25631/09 Güler and Others 13/04/2009 Nurhan Güler (Kayatürk), 1948   Nurcan Güler (Hiştik), 1950   Aycan Güler (Çetindağ), 1954   Tuncay Akıncı, İzmir İzmir, Konak, 2.   Karataş District, Plot No: 632, Parcels Nos: 95, 96, 97, 110, 111, 113, and 114 7/11/1996 23/10/2007 İzmir Civil Court, E. 2006/307 K. 2007/402   13/10/2008 Court of Cassation E.2008/9813 K.2008/11865 and 31/10/2008   26315/11 Bulut and Taşçı 14/12/2010 Kahraman Bulut, 1960   İbrahim Bulut, 1959   Necla Bulut, 1948   Türkan Taşçı, 1942   Gülnihal Bulut, 1945   Hülya Alptekin, 1970   Kemal Bulut, 1966   Ayla Karadağ, 1975   Gülseren Kaplan, 1964   İdris Bulut, 1981   Nihayet Bulut, 1965   Ozan Bulut, 1978   Demet Bulut, 1982   Muhammed Bilal Bulut, 2005 Ramazan Dağ, Şanlıurfa Şanlıurfa, Merkez, Sancaktar District, Block No: 808, Parcel No. 1 2007 11/11/2009 Şanlıurfa Civil Court, E   . 2009/677 K   . 2009/663 06/05/2010 Court of Cassation E.2010/1774 K.2010/8143 and 15 June 2010