CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 décembre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s39467331 { width:106.68%; margin-left:0.1pt; border-collapse:collapse } .sC9BDEB2D { width:10.54%; 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 } .sA96BF3EF { width:22.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s94687DCB { width:10.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2C9939F2 { width:17.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2CD56F3C { width:15.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB315D5A3 { width:10.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sAD9CE6C7 { width:22.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAB9013BE { width:10.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF1307286 { width:17.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27ED8330 { width:15.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3192C8A1 { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 13 December 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24320/11 Nurettin TOPÇU and others against Turkey lodged on 10 January 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a dispute between the applicants and the Treasury concerning some plots of land which were subjected to two different cadastral surveys in 1958 and 1973, respectively. Although the lands at issue were registered in the name of the Treasury following the first cadastral survey, they were registered in the name of the applicants following the second cadastral survey as they had title deeds. Upon a correction request from the land registry, the lands’ ownership was modified according to the first cadastral results, which gave rise to the annulment of some of the applicants’ title deeds by the land registry commission in 1977. The applicants’ case for the restitution of their title deeds was accepted by the cadastral court in 1980, on the grounds that the land registry commission had had no-competency to cancel or modify the final result of the cadastral survey. In 2002, relying on the first cadastral results, the land registry examined of its own motion the registrations concerning the lands at issue and cancelled the applicants’ title deeds considering that they violated the first cadastral results. The applicants objected to that decision, but their case was dismissed by the courts which found that in case of several cadastral surveys concerning the same land only the first survey would be taken into account. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain that they had been unlawfully deprived of their property. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did an action based on Article 1007 of the Civil Code constitute an effective remedy? If so, what was the time-limit for such an action and when did it start to run in the applicants’ cases? The Government are invited to submit examples of judicial decisions rendered in comparable situations and showing the effectiveness of this remedy.   2.     In view of the applicants’ title deeds relied on during the second cadastral survey; did the applicants have a property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, in the light of the conclusions reached in Anna Popova v. Russia (no. 59391/12, 4   October 2016) and Gladysheva v. Russia (no. 7097/10, 6 December 2011), did the registration of the applicants’ lands as the property of the Treasury constitute a violation of applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possession within the meaning of the same provision?   APPENDIX   No. First name Last name Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative   Nurettin TOPÇU 1947 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Şerafettin AKÇA 1961 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Zühal ARAT 1977 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Nihal BİNNAZ (KAHRAMAN) 1958 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Gülay BOZAYI (KAHRAMAN) 1963 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Sibel CAN (BİNNAZ) 1980 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Binnur DAĞDELEN 1964 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   İsmail DAĞDELEN 1953 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Şirin DİKKAŞ 1965 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Necla ERDURAN (KAHRAMAN) 1958 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Hamiyet ERGÜN 1954 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   İsmet ERGÜN 1947 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Mehmet Emin GÖKÇE 1941 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Ayşe GÖRGÜN 1973 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Rahim GÖRGÜN 1938 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Eray KAHRAMAN 1973 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Hüsniye KAHRAMAN 1936 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Fatma ÖZEN 1942 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Aynur ÖZTÜRK 1962 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Emel SENBİL 1972 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Meral SEVER (KAHRAMAN) 1970 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Erdinç SEVİM 1970 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Eşref SEVİM 1966 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Mukadder SEVİM 1947 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Hüsamettin TOPÇU 1956 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Ayşe YAMAN (KAHRAMAN) 1966 Turkish Tekirdağ H. Nalbant Tekin   Mustafa YILMAZ 1930 Turkish Çorlu H. Nalbant Tekin