CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 avril 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 } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .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 } .s3E3166BC { width:200.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 41367/05 Kevork Ramses MALHAS against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25   April 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Ksenija Turković,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 November 2005, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Kevork Ramses Malhas, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1915 and was represented before the Court by Mr Y.Z. Ataç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. Mr Malhas died on 4 July 2009 and his heirs, namely Mr Sarven Leon Malhas, Ms Lerna Jorjet Malhas and Mrs Luiz Malhas informed the Court that they wished to pursue the application in his stead. For practical reasons, Mr Kevork Ramses Malhas will continue to be called “the applicant” in this decision although his heirs are now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §   1, ECHR   1999 ‑ VI, and Çakar v. Turkey , no.   42741/98, § 2, 23 October 2003). 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicant owned a plot of land in Kınalıada, in the Adalar District of Istanbul, which had been registered in the land register as plot no.   91, parcel no. 5. 5.     In 1989, an annotation was made in the land registry indicating that the applicant’s land, which had formerly been indicated as part of a public forest area, was now excluded from the perimeter of the forest area in favour of the Treasury, according to article 2/B of the Forestry Act. 6.     On 13 October 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Adalar Civil Court of First Instance seeking the annulment of the annotation made in the land register. 7.     On 10 December 2003 the Adalar Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request. The appeal and rectification requests lodged by the applicant were rejected by the Court of Cassation on 21   October 2004 and 1 April 2005 respectively. The final decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 5 May 2005. COMPLAINTS 8.     The applicant complained under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that although he had a valid title deed, he could not use or dispose of his land. According to the applicant, he was deprived of his property without receiving any compensation. 9.     Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant also complained about the length and the fairness of the domestic proceedings. He alleged in particular that the domestic courts had delivered contradictory decisions for two similar plots of land and that this inconsistency in the case-law had violated his right to be tried by an impartial tribunal. THE LAW 10.     The Government raised a preliminary objection and argued that the applicant had not complied with the six-month time-limit. 11.     The applicant argued that the last day of the six-month period in his case had fallen on a national holiday and that accordingly he had lodged his application with the Court on the first working day thereafter. 12.     The Court reiterates that the fundamental purpose of the six-months rule is to ensure legal certainty, avoid stale complaints, and provide for examination of the Convention issues within a reasonable time (see Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §§ 39-40, 29 June 2012, and P.M. v.   the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6638/03, 24 August 2004). 13.     Pursuant to the Court’s settled case-law, the six-month time-limit starts to run on the day following the public pronouncement of the final decision or, in cases where a decision is not pronounced publicly, on the day following the date on which the final decision is served on the applicant or his representative, and expires six calendar months later, irrespective of the actual length of those months (see Sabri Güneş , cited above, § 44). The fact that the last day of the six-month period falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or an official holiday and that in such a situation, under domestic law, time-limits are extended to the following working day, does not affect the determination of the last day of the six-month time-limit (ibid., §§ 43 and 61). 14.     The Court observes that in the instant case the final decision of the Court of Cassation of 1 April 2005 was served on the applicant’s representative on 5 May 2005. The time-limit laid down by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention therefore started to run on the following day, 6 May, and expired at midnight on 5 November 2005. However the application was lodged on 7 November 2005, that is, after the expiry of the above-mentioned time-limit. 15.     The Court therefore concludes that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 18 May 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President