CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 décembre 2025

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s3E8C34A1 { width:133.09pt; display:inline-block } .s8DC2FE01 { width:4.2pt; display:inline-block } .sE13162EA { width:134.76pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 13768/18 FOUNDATION OF THE SULUMANASTIR SURP KEVORK ARMENIAN CHURCH IN SAMATYA AND THE SAHAKYAN NUNYAN ARMENIAN CEMETERY AND SCHOOL   against Türkiye   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16   December 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Stéphane Pisani , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 13768/18) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 16 March 2018 by a foundation, the Foundation of the Sulumanastır Surp Kevork Armenian Church in Samatya and the Sahakyan Nunyan Armenian Cemetery and School ( Samatyada Sulumanastır Surp Kevork Ermeni Kilisesi Sahakyan Nunyan Ermeni Mektebi ve Mezarlığı Vakfı ), registered in Istanbul (“the applicant foundation”), which was represented by Mr B. Öztürk, a lawyer practising in Istanbul; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicant is a foundation belonging to a religious minority and owns certain plots of land in Fatih, Istanbul. 2.     The applicant foundation owns and operates a café on one of those plots of land by which it claims to finance its activities as a foundation. 3.     On 30 December 2011 the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality designated some of those plots of land as green spaces in its 1:5,000   scale zoning plan ( nazım imar planı ). 4.     On 30 December 2012 the applicant foundation’s objections to the zoning plan were rejected by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. 5.     On 27 June 2013 the applicant foundation lodged an application with the Administrative Court, seeking to have the zoning plan declared void. It argued that, in view of the fact that the plots of land in question were a source of revenue for it, the decision to designate those plots as green spaces had been taken without striking a balance between the applicant foundation’s interests and those of the public. It also argued that the decision to designate the plots of land in question as green spaces, when viewed as a whole, was not compatible with urban planning rules. 6.     The Administrative Court obtained an expert report, which concluded that the decision to designate the plots of land in question as green spaces was aimed at reducing population density and increasing the quality of life in the neighbourhood and was therefore compatible with general principles of urban planning. However, the report also noted that, in so far as the plots of land in question were owned by a religious minority foundation, the administrative authorities could have derived multidimensional public benefit by selecting a different outcome which did not extinguish the applicant foundation’s source of revenue. 7.     On 22 May 2015 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant foundation’s application as the Municipality’s decision was compatible with the relevant regulations. It reasoned that, despite the suggestion of an alternative plan, the expert report had in fact found the zoning plan designating the plots of land in question as green spaces to be compatible with urban planning rules and necessary. It further held that, since the applicant was not a “ mazbut vakıf ” (foundation under state administration), its properties were not subject to special protection under planning law. 8.     On 7 June 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Administrative Court. It noted that the administration had argued that the zoning plan at issue had been adopted in order to improve the situation caused by an excessive number of buildings in the historic peninsula of Istanbul where there were numerous historic and religious sites. The plan sought to increase the visibility of those historic sites for tourism purposes and to alleviate the effects of overpopulation in the area. The Supreme Administrative Court also referred to the documents appended to the zoning plan that indicated that the historic peninsula of Istanbul was in dire need of green spaces. It thus reasoned that the adopted 1:5,000 scale zoning plan had an overriding public interest. 9.     The Supreme Administrative Court also stressed that the explanatory notes attached to the 1:5,000 scale zoning plan indicated that the specific details of the zoning plan would be included in the 1:1,000 scale zoning plan ( uygulama imar planı ). 10.     On 30 December 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected a request by the applicant foundation for rectification of its decision. As a result, the decision became final. 11.     In 2017 the applicant foundation applied to the Constitutional Court, arguing that a fair balance had not been struck between its interests and those of the public, thus causing a breach of its property rights. 12.     On 27 November 2017 the Constitutional Court dismissed the application on the grounds that the measure at issue was merely a 1:5,000   scale zoning plan, which was not designed to be implemented in so far as it did not contain any of the specific details that would be included in a 1:1,000   scale zoning plan. 13.     The Constitutional Court stated that an issue as complicated as urban planning afforded the administrative authorities a margin of appreciation. It thus reasoned that even though the 1:5,000 scale zoning plan had given rise to an interference with the applicant’s property rights, such interference had not affected the balance between the applicant’s interests and those of the public, given that a 1:1,000 scale plan had not yet been adopted. 14.     The Constitutional Court also stated that, following the adoption of a 1:1,000 scale plan, the administrative authorities would be entitled to expropriate the plots of land in question within five years in exchange for compensation. It therefore concluded that the interference in question was not excessive. 15.     The applicant foundation’s café continued to operate without any change throughout the proceedings before the national courts. The Court has no information on whether the café ceased operations after the present application was lodged with it. 16.     Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant foundation complained that its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its property had been violated by the zoning plan’s failure to strike a balance between its own interests and those of the public. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 17.     The applicant foundation argued that the re-designation of its land as a green space by the 1:5,000 scale plan amounted to a disproportionate interference with its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It contended that the zoning plan had deprived it of its ability to generate income from the café, thereby causing an unjust financial burden. 18.     The Court reiterates that restrictions imposed on a plot of land in a town-planning scheme, such as those in the present case of designating the land as a green space in a zoning plan, constitute an interference with the exercise, by an applicant, of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions falling within the scope of the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 (see Hakan Arı v. Turkey , no. 13331/07, §§   35 ‑ 37, 11   January 2011, and Hüseyin Kaplan v. Turkey , no. 24508/09, §§   36-39, 1   October 2013). 19.     That interference was based on Article 8 of Law no. 3194 which allows a municipality to adopt 1:5,000 scale zoning plans and was thus lawful. It further served the legitimate public interest of protecting Istanbul’s historic heritage and managing urban overpopulation (see for the general principles Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 112-15, 13   December 2016). 20.     The Court must therefore consider whether a fair balance has been struck between the requirements of the general interest of the community and the imperatives of safeguarding the applicant’s fundamental rights (see   Hüseyin Kaplan , cited above, §   40). 21.     The Court stresses in that context that, in an area as complex and difficult as town and country planning, the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in pursuing their town and country planning policy (see Hakan Arı , cited above, § 41, and Hüseyin Kaplan , cited above, §   43). 22 .     In the present case, the Court observes at the outset that the municipality had never taken control of the applicant’s land. The Court notes that the zoning plan at issue is a 1:5,000 scale plan, which serves as a broad framework for urban planning and does not, by itself, result in any immediate expropriation or other restrictions being imposed on the concrete use of the land by the applicant foundation. The café continued to operate and the applicant did not demonstrate that the designation as a green space in the 1:5,000 scale plan implied any factual or legal restriction or obstacle to the café continuing to be operate as before. 23.     Any potential interference with either possession and/or use could only occur following the adoption of a more detailed zoning plan on a scale of 1:1,000. The Court also notes the possibility that the adoption of a future 1:1,000 scale plan might not cause such an interference. 24.     In any event, the Court remarks that, as stated by the Constitutional Court, such an interference following the adoption of a 1:1,000 scale plan would be subject to domestic procedural safeguards, including the right to fair compensation under Turkish law. 25.     The Court further notes that the applicant foundation did not complain of its inability to construct new buildings on its plot of land following the changes set out in the zoning plan. In any event, such a ban on constructing new buildings on a plot of land does not in itself constitute a violation of the right of property (compare Malfatto and Mieille v. France , nos.   40886/06 and   51946/07, § 64, 6 October 2016). 26.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the zoning plan does not, at this stage, constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant foundation’s property rights. The public-interest objective of protecting Istanbul’s historic heritage and managing urban overpopulation has been sufficiently demonstrated. Moreover, the applicant foundation’s ability to operate a café on the plot of land in question has not been restricted, nor has there been any actual deprivation of its property. 27.     The Court therefore concludes that, in the present case, no special or excessive burden was imposed on the applicant foundation such as to upset the fair balance that must be maintained between, on the one hand, the requirements of the public interest and, on the other, the safeguarding of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. 28.     It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be dismissed under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 22 January 2026.     Dorothee von Arnim   Péter Paczolay   Deputy Section Registrar   President