CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-188055
- Date
- 8 novembre 2018
- Publication
- 8 novembre 2018
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; 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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5D568D1E { margin-left:33.01pt; text-align:center; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt }   Communicated on 8 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23060/08 Muharrem GÜNEŞ and Others against Turkey lodged on 2 May 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a dispute over the ownership of some properties registered in the name of Treasury during a cadastral survey. The applicants’ objections for these registrations, on the grounds that their title deed acquired in 1951 as a result of court’s decision had been disregarded, were rejected by relevant courts. The applicants complain under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that by disregarding a final judgment establishing their property rights, the domestic courts deprived them of their property without compensation. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the registration of the disputed lands in the land register in the name of the Treasury while there was a final court decision ordering the registration of the same lands in the name of the applicants’ testator violate their right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999 VII; Burdov v. Russia, no.   59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002 III; and Panorama Ltd and Miličić v.   Bosnia and   Herzegovina , no. 69997/10, § 63, 25 July 2017)? 2.     Did the applicants’ claim to have the disputed lands registered in the land register in their testator’s name in accordance with the court decision of 24   September 1951 constitute a “possession” for the purposes of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? In the affirmative, were the applicants deprived of their possession? If so, was that deprivation justified for the purposes of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants given the apparent absence of compensation (see Brumărescu v.   Romania [GC], no.   28342/95, §   70, ECHR 1999 ‑ VII; Burdov v.   Russia , no.   59498/00, §§   40-42, ECHR   2002 ‑ III; and Panorama Ltd and Miličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no.   69997/10, §§   73-74, 25   July 2017)? APPENDIX     No. Name Nationality Place of residence Representative   Muharrem GÜNEŞ Turkish Diyarbakır M. Beştaş   Kadri GÜNEŞ Turkish Diyarbakır M. Beştaş   Fikri GÜNEŞ Turkish Diyarbakır M. Beştaş   İhsan GÜNEŞ Turkish Diyarbakır M. Beştaş   İlhami GÜNEŞ Turkish Diyarbakır M. Beştaş   Mehmet GÜNEŞ Turkish Diyarbakır M. Beştaş   Nizamettin GÜNEŞ Turkish Diyarbakır M. Beştaş   Ömer GÜNEŞ Turkish Diyarbakır M. Beştaş   Zülfi GÜNEŞ Turkish Diyarbakır M. Beştaş  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 8 novembre 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-188055
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel