CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 août 2020

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sF3D840DC { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:8pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .sC840BDEC { width:133.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF7DC134C { width:39.46pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 32127/07 Gwynneth Antoinette GIRAUD and Olivia Joyce SOLARI against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25   August 2020 as a Chamber composed of:   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Egidijus Kūris,   Ivana Jelić,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Saadet Yüksel,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 July 2007, 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 first applicant, Ms Gwynneth Antoinette Giraud, has dual French and British nationality and was born in 1922. The second applicant, Ms   Olivia Joyce Solari, has dual Italian and British nationality, and was born in 1929. The applicants are sisters and they live in İzmir. They were represented before the Court by Mr M.E. Atay, residing in İzmir. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The French, Italian and British Governments did not make use of their right to intervene under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention. A.     The circumstances of the case 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. Some of the facts are disputed. 1.     Background to the application and the island of Uzunada 5.     The application concerns Uzunada, which is an island located in the Gulf of İzmir, Urla District, in the province of İzmir. The island is not registered in the current land register ( tapu sicili ). It is currently inaccessible to civilians, including the applicants, as a part of it is designated as a first-degree ( birinci derece ) prohibited military zone. The date on which the island was allocated for the use of the Ministry of Defence is disputed between the parties. The applicants claim that the island was occupied by the forces of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War and has been under the de facto control of the Turkish armed forces since the foundation of the Turkish Republic, whereas the Government claim that only in the year 1957 was a certain part of the island allocated to the Ministry of Defence. The rest of the island is classified as forest land, and the proceedings in respect of a cadastral survey of that forested area undertaken by the cadastre ( kadastro ) of that part of the island (which began in 1991 and was completed on 23 June 1993) are currently ongoing before the domestic courts. 6.     The applicants claim that they are the sole inheritors of the entire island, the title of which was last registered in the names of Edward Edwards and Emily Edwards, who inherited it from Elino Binti Yorgaki, the original owner, who acquired the island in the years 1858-1859 and died intestate – that is to say without leaving a will . In support of their claim that they are the lawful heirs in respect of the island, they rely mainly on a certificate from the land Registry in respect of Uzunada and a certificate of inheritance issued by the İzmir Magistrates’ Court on 9 February 2005 (see paragraph 33 below) acknowledging the applicants’ joint, equal entitlement to the estate of one Helen Alfieri. They maintain that Helen Alfieri was the same person as Elino Binti Yorgaki (see paragraph 34 below). [1] 7.     The Government submit that Helen Alfieri was not the same person as Elino Binti Yorgaki and that the applicants are not therefore descendants of Elino Binti Yorgaki. In support of their submission, they cite the decision of the Urla Magistrates’ Court of 30 November 2016 (see paragraph 48 below). 8.     As regards the cadastral status of the island, the Government assert that a cadastral survey was completed in 1977 in the Urla district and left the island of Uzunada outside of the cadastral demarcation boundary ( tespit dışı ). The Government maintain that there is no cadastral survey or land Registry record in respect of the island of Uzunada. In support of their argument, they submitted the following documents to the Court: -     A letter of 28 April 2003 from the Urla Cadastral Office of the Governor of İzmir addressed to the Forest Administration, rejecting a request lodged by the latter for the island to be registered as forest land and indicating that maps of a certain scale with the necessary technical details would need to be submitted to it in order for the requested registration to be undertaken. -     A letter of 4 April 2005 from the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastral Offices ( Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü – “the Directorate”) addressed to the first applicant in response to a query from her about the cadastral status of the island (see paragraphs 15 and 16 below). -     A letter of 19 April 2018 from the Cadastral Office of the Governor of İzmir addressed to the Directorate in response to a query from the Ministry of Justice concerning the facts to be submitted to the Court with respect to the present case about the cadastral status of the island. The letter mentions the following: it had been intended for a cadastral survey in respect of the island to be carried out; however, owing to the fact that the island had been declared as a first-degree prohibited military zone in 1991, the plans had never materialised. Moreover, the Forest Administration had lodged the above-mentioned request in 2002 with the Urla Cadastral Office of the Governor of İzmir for the island to be registered as forest land, but because the forest maps and records that it had submitted had been found to be technically insufficient, the request for registration had been rejected. The letter indicates that since no cadastral survey work had ever been undertaken in respect of the island, no land Registry record or cadastral record existed in respect of it. 9.     The applicants argue that there is no proof that Uzunada was ever included in a cadastral survey, as there is no official document showing that it was ever indicated as lying within the boundary of a map depicting an area subject to a planned cadastral survey. For that reason they contend that no decision was ever taken to leave the island outside the area demarcated for cadastral survey. They rely on the following exchanges: -     On 20 February 1991, in a letter designated as “classified”, Mr. A.T., the cadastral manager in Urla, lodged a request for information with the Regional Land Register and Cadastral Office regarding how to proceed with a planned cadastral survey of certain areas in Urla (including Uzunada), noting that the latter area had not yet been subject to a cadastral survey. He furthermore requested standard typographical maps of the island in a scale of 1/5000. -     On 11 July 1991 the Chief of Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces in Ankara sent a letter to the Directorate, replying to a request lodged by the latter for typographical maps of the island for the purposes of registering the island as being under the ownership of the Treasury of the Turkish Republic (“the Treasury”). He noted that because the island of Uzunada was a first-degree prohibited military zone, the maps in question could not be handed to the authorities but that they could be inspected in the offices of the Turkish Armed Forces, in the presence of a military officer. The letter furthermore specified that no technical inspections could be carried out on the island. 10.     Lastly, the surface area of the island is disputed by the parties. The applicants assert that since there is no evidence that a cadastral survey has ever been conducted on the island and no maps drawn, the precise area of the island is unknown. They furthermore argue that the title deeds last registered in the name of Elino Binti Yorgaki indicate that the latter had owned 21 dönüm (the unit of area used in the Ottoman Empire and normally corresponding to “forty standard paces in length and breadth”), which was also indicated as constituting the entire area of the island. The Government, on the other hand, submit that Uzunada has a surface area of about 25,000 decares (a unit of surface area equal to 1,000 square metres), whereas the title deeds relied on by the applicants correspond only to 6,983 decares of land. 2.     Proceedings lodged by the applicants concerning the cadastral forest survey of Uzunada 11 .     On 5 April 2002 the Urla Title Deeds Office ( Urla Tapu Sicil Müdürlüğü ), in connection with a query from the applicants’ representative, replied that no cadastral work had been undertaken with respect to Uzunada. 12.     On 31 December 2002 the first applicant wrote to the Urla Forest Office ( Urla Orman İşletme Şefliği ) requesting (i) information as to whether a cadastral forest survey had been performed with respect to the island of Uzunada, and if so, (ii) the related documents. The Urla Forest Office in its reply of 2 January 2003 stated that the cadastral forest survey had commenced on the island on 2 September 1991 and had ended on 6   December 1991; the results had been announced on 26 June 1993. 13 .     On the basis of that information, the applicants lodged a claim with the Urla Civil Court seeking to contest the findings of the cadastral forest survey. According to the latest information available to the Court, the proceedings were pending before domestic courts. The present application does not concern the parts of Uzunada that are subject to the ongoing dispute relating to the cadastral forest survey. 3.     Proceedings at issue (a)     Administrative proceedings lodged by the applicants concerning the cadastral status of Uzunada. 14.     On 23 December 2004 the applicants lodged an application with the Directorate requesting that a cadastral survey of Uzunada be conducted. In their application, they referred to (i) the letter from the Urla Title Deeds Office of 5 April 2002 (see paragraph 11 above) and (ii) the fact that no cadastral map of Uzunada had been found in the Urla Cadastral Office of the Governor of İzmir. Lastly, they relied on section 22 and provisional section 4 of the Law on Cadastral Matters (“Law no. 3402” – see paragraphs 56 and 57 below) and attached copies of the land Registry records ( tapu kayıt örneği ) regarding Uzunada. 15 .     On 4 April 2005 the Directorate replied to the applicants, stating that the entire area of Urla District had been subject to a cadastral survey in year 1977 and that Uzunada had been left outside the boundary demarcating the cadastral area ( tespit dışı ). It also noted that the cadastral forest survey had been completed in 1991 on the island and referred to the pending proceedings brought in the domestic courts by the applicants concerning that cadastral forest survey. Moreover, referring to the case-law of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Cassation’s Civil Division (decision of 7   February 2001, E. 2001/8-80 K. 2001/99) it stated that leaving an area outside a demarcation boundary set for the purposes of a cadastral survey would also be considered to constitute a “cadastral act” ( kadastro işlemi ) in as much as that area (i) would be considered to constitute State land, (ii)   would be considered not suitable for renovation, construction or adverse possession, and (iii) in the event that no objections were raised against it being left outside the cadastral demarcation boundary. 16 .     Regarding the legal provisions relied on by the applicants, the Directorate stated that section 22 had recently been amended and that Law   no. 3402 no longer conferred a right on persons other than State authorities to request a cadastral survey to be conducted. It furthermore noted that even when the previous version of section 22 had been in force, a circular notice setting out the conditions of the applicability of section 22 to various situations had specified, inter alia , that the property in respect of which a request for a cadastral survey was made would need to be in the possession (or at the disposal) of the persons concerned. The Directorate also stated that since Uzunada had been in the possession of the State since 1924, it was clear that the applicants had no ownership rights that would allow them to request the authorities to conduct a cadastral survey on the basis of the provisions that had then been in force. Lastly, it noted that in any event, the applicants had not lodged an objection within the time-limit set out in the law in respect of scenarios in which an area was left outside the demarcation boundary set for a cadastral survey. It therefore rejected the applicants’ request for a cadastral survey to be conducted, on the grounds that the current regulations did not confer on them a right to make such a request. 17.     On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an application with the İzmir Administrative Court for the annulment of the Directorate’s decision rejecting their request for a cadastral survey to be conducted on the island of Uzunada. 18 .     On 8 June 2005 the İzmir Administrative Court rejected that application for lack of jurisdiction. Referring to section 25 of Law no. 3402 it held that cadastral courts were the courts with jurisdiction to examine the case. 19.     After the decision of the İzmir Administrative Court had become final, the applicants then lodged a fresh application with the Urla Cadastral Court. 20.     The Urla Cadastral Court forwarded the applicants’ application to the Directorate, asking for its response; in reply, the Directorate contested the jurisdiction of the cadastral courts, arguing that given the fact that the dispute in question concerned an area that had been left outside the relevant cadastral demarcation boundary, it fell outside the jurisdiction of the cadastral courts. The Directorate also argued that a cadastral survey in the district of Urla had been completed in 1977 and that the applicants had failed to contest the results of that survey within the time-limit prescribed by Law no. 3402. 21 .     After holding a hearing, the Urla Cadastral Court dismissed the application on 23 May 2006, holding that courts of general jurisdiction could not render a decision compelling the authorities to act. In that connection the cadastral court noted that the applicants’ request for the cadastral survey to be carried out in respect of Uzunada constituted an “administrative request”. 22.     On 29 September 2006, following an appeal by the applicants, the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of 23 May 2006 on the grounds that the jurisdiction of the cadastral courts began when a cadastral document was issued. Noting that the applicants’ application solely concerned an administrative request – namely, compelling the authorities to conduct a cadastral survey – it held that it was therefore clear that cadastral courts lacked jurisdiction to rule on such a request. 23 .     On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an application with the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, arguing that both the İzmir Administrative Court and the Urla Cadastral Court had rejected their application for lack of jurisdiction. They therefore requested the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes to determine which court had jurisdiction in respect of the case. On 4 February 2008 the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes dismissed the case. After summarising the impugned court decisions, it briefly noted that the Urla Cadastral Court’s decision could not be considered to constitute a decision delivered by a court that had not had the relevant jurisdiction; therefore, there had been no conflict of jurisdiction (as had been alleged by the applicants). (b)     Action before the civil courts for a declaratory judgment 24.     On 31 March 2008 the applicants lodged an application with the Urla Civil Court of First Instance (“Urla Civil Court”), seeking a declaration that a cadastral survey had never been carried out in respect of Uzunada. In their application they summarised the proceedings they had brought in order to determine the cadastral status of Uzunada, none of which according to them had shed light on the question of the actual status of Uzunada, since the Directorate had failed to produce documents that could prove conclusively that the island had been subject to a cadastral survey but had been left outside the cadastral demarcation. They maintained that the act of leaving an area outside the cadastral demarcation would need to be documented with boundary and typographical maps and that there had to be an official document stating (i) that the area in question fell within the boundary but had been not been surveyed, and (ii) the reason that it had not been surveyed. Given that the Directorate had never disclosed such documents to the applicants or to the courts in the course of the domestic proceedings, the applicants explained that they had a legal interest in seeking an official declaration of the cadastral status of Uzunada in order to protect their property interests with respect to the island. They also asked the court to order the Directorate to conduct a cadastral survey in the event that it found that no cadastral survey had ever been carried out. 25 .     On 19 June 2009, the Urla Civil Court dismissed the applicants’ case on the grounds of their not having a legal interest in bringing a declaratory action. In its reasoning the court held that in the light of the circumstances of the present case and from the documents submitted by the parties, it was apparent that Uzunada had been left outside the cadastral demarcation. The court therefore reasoned that the correct legal action, which the applicants should pursue to protect their proprietary interests was to lodge an action seeking the registration of the area in question under their name ( tapu tescili davası ). That would settle the questions of the cadastral status of Uzunada and the applicants’ property claim to the island. Hence, the court dismissed the applicants’ request, in accordance with the principle that in cases where a claimant has the right bring an action for performance, he or she cannot be given leave to bring a declaratory action. 26.     On 4 October 2010, following an appeal by the applicants, the Court of Cassation upheld the Urla Civil Court’s decision of 19 June 2009, noting that the applicants had the possibility to bring an action for the property to be registered in their names on the basis of adverse possession under Article   713 § 1 of the Civil Code and by producing relevant title deeds or other legal evidence, as set out in section 12(4) of Law no. 3402. 27.     On 3 March 2011 the Court of Cassation rejected a request lodged by the applicants for the rectification of its decision of 4 October 2010 on the grounds that none of the reasons put forth by the applicants fell within the exhaustive list of permissible grounds for rectification. 4.     Parallel and subsequent ex parte proceedings concerning the parties’ application for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance (in chronological order) 28.     There have also been several sets of ex parte proceedings concerning the line of succession in respect of the last registered owners of the island of Uzunada. Those proceedings took place in parallel to and subsequent to the main proceedings at issue. They are set out below in the order in which they were each completed domestically. To summarise, in the first set of proceedings concerning the applicants’ request for a certificate of inheritance in respect of Helen Alfieri, the domestic court granted them a certificate of inheritance (see paragraphs 29 and 33 below). The Forest Administration and the Treasury brought a separate action (“the second set of proceedings”) in order to cancel that certificate of inheritance (see paragraphs 37 and 45 below); as a result of their request being rejected by the domestic courts, the Treasury then applied on its own (that is to say independently of the Forest Administration) for a certificate of inheritance in respect of the estate of Elino Binti Yorgaki (“the third set of proceedings” – see paragraphs 46 and 49 below). As a result of some of the developments that arose in the course of the second and third set of proceedings, the applicants lodged a request with the domestic court that had granted them the certificate of clarification (see paragraph 33 below) in the first of set of proceedings that a clarification be appended to their certificate (see paragraph 34 below). That request was allowed. However, the clarification decision was subsequently challenged by the Treasury and annulled by the appeal courts (see paragraphs 35-36 below). (a)     The first applicant’s request for a certificate of inheritance (i)     Original request 29 .     On 23 October 2003 the first applicant lodged an application with the İzmir Magistrates’ Court in Civil Matters ( Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi – “the İzmir Magistrates’ Court”), requesting that a certificate of inheritance be issued to her in respect of the estate of Helen Alfieri. It appears that the applicant lodged the application in order to support her and the second applicant’s standing in respect of the dispute concerning the cadastral forest survey of Uzunada (see paragraphs 11-13 above) as the court hearing the case relating to the cadastral forest survey had stayed those proceedings until the issue regarding the inheritance had been dealt with. 30.     In the course of the proceedings, the İzmir Magistrates’ Court sought information from the British Consulate in İzmir concerning the applicants’ ancestor and her descendants. The court furthermore requested an opinion from the Ministry of Justice as to whether there was a reciprocal arrangement with the United Kingdom concerning foreigners’ right to acquire immovable property by way of inheritance with respect to the various dates of deaths of the original owner/testator and the successive heirs. The Ministry submitted that no such reciprocal arrangement had been in place in the years 1878, 1892, 1897, 1957 and 1982 – the years of death of the previous successors. The trial court also sought an expert opinion on the issue, and especially the chain of intestate succession to the original estate of the original owner. The expert, a professor of civil law, identified the chain of succession as follows: -     Helen Alifieri had been survived by her husband, Anthony François Edwards (who had died in 1892) and her children, Edward Edwards (who had died in 1897) and Emily Edwards (who had died in 1918). -     Emily Edwards (married name Murat) had had two children named Randolph and Frederic, but no information was available regarding when they had died, nor was there any record of whether they themselves had had any surviving heirs. Edward Edwards had been survived by his wife, Caroline Rodoly (who had died in 1920) and his children, Anthony Edward Edwards (who had died in 1957), Helen Edwards (who had died in 1958) and Julia Anna Edwards (who had died in 1960). Neither of Edward Edwards’ daughters had had any surviving heirs, as they had never married prior to their deaths. -     Anthony Edward Edwards had been survived by his children, Edward Alfred Edwards (who had died in 1982), Dorothy Helen Edwards (who had died in 1996) and Ada Maria Edwards (who had died in 1988). Dorothy Helen Edwards and Ada Maria Edwards had died single and did not have any children. -     Edward Alfred Edwards had been survived only by his daughters (that is to say the first and the second applicant) – his sole heirs. 31.     In the opinion of the expert, since Helen Alifieri had been a British subject at the time of her death, English law would have governed the intestate succession. Accordingly, he considered that on the basis of the chain of succession, the applicants were the sole heirs of Helen Alifieri, the original owner. He also noted that the British Consulate had informed the court in an information note dated 20 February 2004 that Helen Alfieri was mentioned as “Elini Binti Yorgaki” or “Eleni Georgiu Alfieri” in official records found in the Consulate. 32.     The expert also noted in his report that even if there had not been a reciprocal agreement between Turkey and the United Kingdom, that would not have prevented the applicants from obtaining a declaration from a court that they were the heirs of the original owner. In the expert’s opinion, the question of property rights and disputes concerning the original owner’s estate was an issue separate from that regarding the identification of the intestate heirs. 33 .     On the basis of all the above information, on 9 February 2005, the İzmir Magistrates’ Court delivered a decision holding that the applicants were the heirs of Helen Alifieri and were entitled to equal shares in her estate until and unless proved otherwise. On 29 March 2005 the court revised the operative part of its decision at the request of the applicants to clarify that the estate of Helen Alifieri had passed on to her husband, Anthony François Edwards, through intestacy, pursuant to English law. (ii)     Request for clarification 34 .     On 15 November 2017 at the request of the applicants, the İzmir Magistrates’ Court issued a clarification in respect of its decision, noting that the name of the intestate (which had been indicated as Helen Alfieri in the decision) was Helen (Eleni) Binti, the daughter of Yorgaki (Georgiu) Alifieri, as indicated by the British Consulate in İzmir in its information note of 20 February 2004. (iii)     Annulment of clarification 35 .     On 24 September 2018 the Treasury lodged an appeal in respect of the clarification of 15 November 2017. It submitted that the question of whether immovable property could be inherited by the applicants was a question directly relevant to the proceedings ongoing before the Urla Civil Court concerning the dispute in respect of the cadastral forest survey (see paragraph 13 above) and the proceedings before the Urla Magistrates’ Court in respect of the Treasury’s application for a certificate of inheritance (see paragraphs 46-48 below). The Treasury submitted that the applicants had requested a clarification of the decision of the İzmir Magistrates Court in order to submit that clarification in the above-mentioned ongoing proceedings and that that court had therefore been in error in allowing that request. 36 .     On 14 December 2018 the İzmir Regional Court of Appeals allowed the Treasury’s appeal and revoked the clarification of 15 November 2017, holding that the subject matter of the clarification was of a nature that could be disputed independently of the decision of 9 February 2005 and that it had therefore been unlawful for the İzmir Magistrates’ Court to issue the clarification. The decision of the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal was not amenable to appeal, and was therefore final. (b)     Action for the cancellation of the certificate of inheritance issued by the İzmir Magistrates’ Court on 9 February 2005 37 .     On 12 May 2005, the Forest Administration and the Treasury lodged an application against the applicants with the Urla Magistrates’ Court seeking the revocation of the certificate of inheritance issued by the İzmir Magistrates’ Court on 9 February 2005 (see paragraph 33 above). The Forest Administration and the Treasury submitted, inter alia , that the İzmir Magistrates’ Court had carried out an incomplete examination, in view of (i)   the fact that it had not taken into account the lack of a reciprocal agreement between Turkey and the United Kingdom concerning the rights of foreigners to acquire immovable property and (ii) the relevant provisions of domestic law regarding the application of international private law and procedure – specifically the domestic provisions stipulating that immovable property located in Turkey was governed by Turkish law. They therefore argued that the applicants could not inherit immovable property under the applicable laws and that the İzmir Magistrates’ Court’s decision should therefore be revoked on those grounds. 38.     The applicants replied that the condition of reciprocity (that is to say reciprocal legal arrangements between Turkey and the United Kingdom), which was only relevant in respect of the respective dates of the deaths of the successive heirs of Helen Alifieri, had been satisfied. 39.     During the proceedings, the Urla Magistrates’ Court was informed that the Urla Assize Court had stayed the proceedings concerning the cadastral forest survey dispute pending the outcome of the case before the Urla Magistrates’ Court. 40.     The Urla Magistrates’ Court requested information from the Department of International Law and Foreign Affairs at the Ministry of Justice concerning any reciprocal legal arrangements in respect of citizens of the Ottoman Empire (and subsequently Turkey) in the United Kingdom in the years 1878, 1897, 1918, 1957 and 1982. In its reply, the Department of International Law and Foreign Affairs noted that Ottoman subjects could buy or inherit property in the United Kingdom in the years 1878, 1897 and 1918. It noted, however, that the United Kingdom’s 1919 Aliens Restrictions Act had prohibited individuals who were citizens of a State that had been an enemy of the United Kingdom three years prior to the enactment of the Act from acquiring immovable property in the United Kingdom. It also noted that it was not clear whether those restrictions had applied in cases of inheritance by succession. It furthermore submitted that it was also uncertain whether those restrictions had ever applied to Turkish citizens. 41.     On 10 October 2006 the Urla Magistrates’ Court appointed three professors – experts in international, civil and property law, respectively – and referred to them the question of whether the individuals whose names appeared in the land register (that is to say the previous heirs) could have inherited property in Turkey at the times of the dates of the death of the original owner and her successors. In their report submitted to the court on 27 June 2007, the experts noted that for foreigners to acquire immovable property in the Ottoman Empire, three conditions had to be satisfied under Ottoman laws enacted in 1867 – specifically, the Expedition Act ( Sefer Kanunu ). Firstly, the property in question had to be outside the “holy lands” ( hicaz toprakları – that is to say areas in present-day Saudi Arabia, such as Mecca and Medina). Secondly, there had to be an agreement in place between the Ottoman Empire and the State of which the foreigner in question was a citizen concerning the extent of the latter party’s right to acquire property in the Ottoman Empire. Lastly, the foreigner in question should not have renounced Ottoman citizenship without permission. According to the experts it was clear that the United Kingdom and the Ottoman Empire had signed an agreement in 1868 concerning the acquisition of property in the Ottoman Empire by British citizens. According to two of the experts on the panel, the Expedition Act did not require the existence of such a reciprocal agreement as an additional condition for foreigners to acquire property in the Ottoman Empire. According to those experts, the conditions laid out in the Expedition Act remained in force until the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. They furthermore noted that Helen Alifieri’s estate had not included any property in the “holy lands”. Those two experts therefore considered that all the conditions for the acquisition of immovable property had been satisfied in respect of both the original owner and her successors. The third expert on the panel disagreed with the findings of the other experts. He considered that the existence of a reciprocal agreement had been a sine qua non for foreigners seeking to acquire immovable property in the Ottoman Empire and that that condition could not have been satisfied during the years 1914-1918 owing to the First World War and the above-mentioned 1919 Aliens Restrictions Act. Given that Emily Edwards had died in 1918, it followed, according to that expert, that her heirs could not have inherited her estate. 42.     The Forest Administration and the Treasury in their final submissions to the court argued that the original owner in respect of Uzunada had not been Helen Alifieri but Elina Binti Yorgaki, which was the name that appeared on the relevant land Registry documents. They therefore submitted that there had been no link between the certificate of inheritance and the land Registry document in respect of Uzunada. 43.     On 6 April 2011 the Urla Magistrates’ Court dismissed the application of 12 May 2005, holding that the Forest Administration and the Treasury had no standing to request the revocation of the certificate of inheritance in view of the fact that they were not the legal heirs of the original owner, Helen Alifieri. As regards the argument of the Forest Administration and the Treasury that the İzmir Magistrates’ Court had conducted an incomplete examination of the matter in so far as (i) the matter concerned immovable property but the examination conducted by that court had nevertheless taken into account only consular documents and (ii) the court had applied the law incorrectly by overlooking the provision set out in section 22 of the Turkish Private International Law and Procedures Act (Law no. 2675) – namely that Turkish laws applied to immovable property located in Turkey – the Urla Magistrates’ Court noted that the land Registry documents had been issued in respect of Elina Binti Yorgaki, as the original owner of the island, but that the certificate of inheritance contested by the Forest Administration and the Treasury had not been issued in respect of that individual. In that connection the Urla Magistrates’ Court considered that the certificate of inheritance challenged by the Forest Administration and the Treasury had mentioned Anthony Edwards and Helen Eleni Alifieri only. 44.     On 17 November 2011 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal lodged by the Forest Administration and the Treasury. 45 .     On 15 March 2012 the Court of Cassation dismissed an application made by the Forest Administration and the Treasury seeking a rectification of its decision of 17 November 2011, holding that the Forest Administration could not make a case for the revocation of a certificate of inheritance unless it had been designated as an heir in that certificate or authorised by another court to bring such proceedings. Since the Urla Assize Court had not authorised the Forest Administration to bring such proceedings and since it had not been named as an heir in the certificate, it had overstepped its authority. (c)     The Treasury’s request for a certificate of inheritance 46 .     On 16 August 2012 the Treasury lodged an application with the Urla Magistrates’ Court requesting that a certificate of inheritance be issued to the State concerning the immovable property registered under the name of Elina Binti Yorgaki. It argued that the Ottoman-era “enumeration records” ( yoklama kağıtları ) indicating Elina Binti Yorgaki as the owner of the immovable property were over a hundred years old and that nobody had claimed ownership of the island on the basis of those records. The Ministry of Defence intervened in the proceedings in favour of the Treasury. 47.     The applicants intervened in the proceedings and contested the Treasury’s application, relying on the certificate of inheritance issued to them by the İzmir Magistrates’ Court (see paragraph 33 above) and also on the judgment of the Urla Magistrates’ Court of 6 April 2011 dismissing the same claim (that is to say the application to be recognised as the legal heir of Helen Alifieri, see paragraphs 37 and 45 above) that had been brought by the Treasury previously. 48 .     On 30 November 2016 the Urla Magistrates’ Court ruled that the State was the sole heir in respect of the immovable property in question. Firstly, the first-instance court reasoned that it could not be proved that Elino Binti Yorgaki, in whose name the enumeration record had been drafted and whom the applicants had asserted as the original owner, had been the same person as Helen Alifieri, who was indicated as the intestate in the certificate of inheritance submitted by the applicants. Secondly, and more importantly, the court held that according to the archival records of the Directorate, Elino Binti Yorgaki had been an Ottoman subject at the time of her acquisition of the property in question and that it had not been possible under the Ottoman laws at the relevant time for an Ottoman subject to bequeath property to foreign nationals. For that reason, the court ruled that Elino Binti Yorgaki could not have legally bequeathed immovable property to her husband, Anthony François Edwards, who had not been of Ottoman citizenship. 49 .     On 18 April 2018 the decision became final following the dismissal by the İzmir Regional Court of an appeal lodged by the applicants. (d)     Application by the applicants for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance 50.     On 8 June 2018 the applicants lodged an application with the İzmir Magistrates’ Court requesting that it issue them a certificate of inheritance in respect of Anthony Edward Edwards, their grandfather. 51.     On 26 February 2019 the court issued the applicants with a certificate of inheritance attesting that they were entitled to equal shares in the late Anthony Edward Edwards’ estate. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Law on Cadastral Matters (Law no. 3402) 52.     The purpose of the Law on Cadastral Matters, which entered into force on 9 October 1987, was the creation of the present-day land register (as required by the Civil Code) by determining the legal status of properties and their precise boundaries on the basis of topographical maps. 53.     The designation of areas where a cadastral survey is to be carried out, the manner of announcing such a survey, and the consequences of such an announcement are set out mainly in sections 2, 4, 7, and 10-12 of Law   no. 3402, which provide, in so far as relevant, as follows: Section 2 Determination of Cadastral Districts and Announcement “... Districts where a cadastral survey will be carried out shall be announced at least one month in advance in the Official Gazette, on radio or television and in the local newspaper, where applicable, and also by conventional methods of announcement [that are customary] in the place in question.” Section 4 Cadastral area – Announcement – Opposition “Each village in the cadastral area and each neighbourhood within the boundaries of a municipality shall itself constitute a [sub-]cadastral area. The manager of a cadastral survey shall announce by conventional methods in the area to be surveyed – as well as in its regional centre and in the neighbouring villages and neighbourhoods [outside that cadastral area]) – at least fifteen days before ... that the survey is to be carried out. ... In the determination of the boundaries of the cadastral survey area, the cadastral team takes into account municipal and village boundaries. Those boundaries shall not replace the administrative boundaries of municipalities, neighbourhoods or villages. In the determination of boundaries, information and documents relating to neighbouring villages and neighbourhoods are taken into account. Boundaries as determined by the cadastral team are reflected on the [cadastral] maps ... Opposition to the [demarcation] of a cadastral survey area may be lodged with the Cadastral Office within seven days [of the announcement]. The cadastral manager shall announce his or her decision with respect to [any such] opposition within seven days. The persons concerned may [then] bring proceedings before a cadastral court within seven days of the date on which that decision is issued. The cadastral court shall examine the [grounds for such] opposition without holding a hearing, but if necessary [it may] carry out an on-site inspection. It shall deliver a decision within fifteen days of the bringing of proceedings. The decision shall be final. ...” Section 7 Establishing the boundaries of immovable property “Cadastral survey staff examine and apply the maps, land-register and tax records, and other documents in the presence of interested persons and owners of the property [in question] and in the presence of at least three experts and the village headman ( muhtar ). In respect of each immovable property, cadastral survey staff should prepare a report in which they record the information they have gathered and the impressions they have gained. They then draw the boundaries of the immovable property and determine who the respective rightholders are. Boundaries shall be indicated on the cadastral map or on enlarged photographs or sketches; contentious borders should be referred to separately. ... Where a [dissenting legal] claim is made in respect of (immovable properties within or adjacent to the cadastral area regarding which no cadastral document has been issued or in respect of immovable properties that are located entirely outside the cadastral area [in question], [and it is argued those properties] should be subject to a cadastral survey, [that claim] shall be documented by marking [on the relevant documents and maps] the necessary demarcations and determinations and forwarded to the cadastral commission. Section 10 “ The cadastral commission shall examine disputed documents referred to it, providing reasoning [for its decision] at the latest one month from the date of referral and [in any event] by the time that cadastral survey work have been finalised. [The commission] shall replace the old document by issuing a new document that determines the rightholder [in question] ... No witnesses [contesting the documents] shall be heard. [All the members of] the commission shall convene and [it] shall determine its decision by a majority vote. Its conclusions shall be disseminated by way of public announcement. The commission shall forward the dispute to the cadastral courts in the event that the resolution of the dispute falls within the latter’s jurisdiction or where the dispute cannot be resolved on the basis of documents that have equal weight and [evidentiary] value.” Section 11 “The manager of a cadastral survey shall ... post the conclusions of the cadastral commission in [the cadastral office] and the residence of the village muhtar for a period of thirty days; [those conclusions should] contain a notice that any [legal] complaint [regarding those conclusions] should be lodged directly with the cadastral courts during the announcement period. The manager shall announce the conclusions of the cadastral commission no later than three months after the completion of the cadastral commission’s work. ... Announcements made in accordance with this law shall count as personal notification in respect of real and legal persons.” Section 12 Finalisation of cadastral records and limitation period “Boundaries and findings indicated in cadastral records become final at the end of the thirty-day announcement period, unless proceedings are brought in a court of law. Cadastral records which thus become final, and the final decisions of cadastral courts, shall be recorded in the land register no later than three months after the date on which they became final. Boundaries, findings and rights recorded in those final records cannot be contested after the passage of ten years from the date on which they become final on the basis of rights or claims that had existed prior to the [relevant] cadastral survey. Old land Registry records that relate to an immovable property within the boundaries of the cadastral survey area shall lose their validity when the cadastral survey work is completed in that area. No request can be lodged with the cadastral and land Registry offices on the basis of such records. ... ” 54.     The relevant parts of sections 13 and 14 of Law no. 3402, as in force at the time in question, set out the conditions for registering property in the land register as follows: Section 13 “In respect of immovable property registered in a land register: A)     If the persons under whose name it is registered, or his or her successors (provided that they are in possession of the property): a)     In the name of the person under whose name it is registered, b)     If the former has passed away, in the names of his or her heirs, c)     If the heirs cannot be identified, in the name of the original owner (with an annotation noting the fact that he or she is dead). B)     If someone other than the registered owner or his or heirs is in possession of the property: a)     In the name of the possessor, provided that the registered owner or his or her heirs have given their consent [thereto] before a member of the cadastral survey staff, b)     In the name of the possessor, provided that he or she has been in possession of the property in an uncontentious and continuous manner for at least ten years and that he or she can prove that that property was acquired from the registered owners or [their] heirs [by means other than registration of a change of ownership] in the land register, c)     In the name of the possessor, [provided that he or she] has possessed the property in a peaceful and uncontentious manner for at least twenty years, in any of the following cases: if the registered owner died twenty years ago, or has been declared or presumed dead, or it cannot be determined from the land register who the owner is. ...” Section 14 “An unregistered property with a surface area of up to 100 hectares consisting of dry land or up to 40 hectares consisting of wetland within a given cadastral area may be registered in the land register in the name of a possessor who can prove uncontentious and continuous possession by means of documents, witness statements or expert testimony. ...” 55.     Section 16 governs public property and property belonging to the State or State organs. Accordingly, places that are regarded as the property of the State and come exclusively under its jurisdiction – such as rocks, hills mountains, riv