CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2019

.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 }   Communicated on 23 January 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27269/09 ARNAVUTKÖY GREEK ORTHODOX TAKSIARHIS CHURCH FOUNDATION against Turkey lodged on 18 May 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic authorities’ refusal to register a property on the applicant, who is a minority foundation registered under the laws of Turkey, and the domestic courts’ dismissal of the applicant foundation’s claims in two separate sets of proceedings concerning the registration of the property at issue. The applicant foundation complains of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention and Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, arguing that it had been deprived of its property on account of its status as a Greek-Orthodox foundation. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was it required to bring a case against the third person who appeared to be the owner of the property at issue in the land registry as pointed out by the Istanbul Administrative Court in its decision dated 24 December 2010? Was the availability of that remedy sufficiently clear?   2.     Did the applicant foundation have a “possession” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, was the property at issue listed in the declaration it had filed in 1936? Did the declarations filed by the applicant company in 1952 have any effect regarding its right to ownership of the property? What was the basis of the decision of the Directorate of Foundations dated 13 November 2003, whereby it had established that the property at issue should be registered in the name of the applicant foundation? Did the Istanbul Civil Court and the Court of Cassation take account of that decision during the proceedings regarding the registration of the property, to which the applicant foundation had joined as a civil party (E:   2004/1, K:   2007/170)? If the applicant foundation had a possession, has it been deprived of it in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law? Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant foundation? 3.     Has the applicant foundation suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its Convention rights on the ground of its religious identity contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, in particular taking account of the protection provided to religious minority foundations by the Lausanne Treaty?   The parties are invited to inform the Court about the outcome of the proceedings before the Istanbul Administrative Court (E:   2010/616, K:   2010/2046). They are further requested to provide an expert report, preferably judicial, on the alleged damage caused to the applicant by the impugned interference. The report should point out all the objective criteria it relies on in reaching its conclusions.