CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 8 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 21099/07 Şerif GENÇ against Turkey lodged on 2 May 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s claim for acquisition of a piece of land, which was designated as stream bed ( “dere yatağı” ) during the cadastral survey, by meeting statutory requirements of continuous possession, pursuant to article 713 of the Turkish Civil Code. The applicant challenges the fairness of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. He further complains that the refusal of his case for the registration of the aforementioned land has violated his right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did he have a legitimate expectation as regards his claim concerning the property that he had been using for an extended period of time?   If so, has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Did such deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on him?   Having regard to the findings in the expert reports and the witness statements establishing the characteristic of the land at issue, as well as the registration of the neighbouring parcels in the name of the relevant persons, was the dismissal of the applicant’s case compatible with the procedural requirements implicitly guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the conflicting decisions of the Court of Cassation as regards the applicant’s parcel and the neighbouring parcels comply with the requirements of legal certainty?