CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s1EF185F3 { width:99.8%; border-collapse:collapse } .s335E46F { width:8.92%; 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 } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8F0DD0BA { width:19.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF33DA1BC { width:10.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7441BD44 { width:18.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFAF4C4CE { width:25.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s321E263B { height:27.6pt } .s87E25E88 { width:8.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s65D68F6F { width:19.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE0806845 { width:10.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7033CD84 { width:18.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9E4D7BE9 { width:25.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 23 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38597/14 Abdulaziz KABAR and others against Turkey lodged on 12 May 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings brought by the applicants before the Hazro Cadastral Court concerning a cadastral dispute. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their right to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms were not respected because they were not notified of the on-site examination ( keşif ) carried out by the domestic court. As a result of this alleged shortcoming they argue that they could not present their views and those of the local witnesses concerning the status of the land during the impugned examination. They further argue that the local expert witnesses ( mahalli bilirkişi ) chosen by the court and heard during the on-site examination were not impartial since one of them was a relative of the other party and the others had an on-going judicial dispute with the applicants in other proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to their allegation that the on-site examination was carried out by the first-instance court without their knowledge and participation? 2.     As regards the equality of arms, were the local expert witnesses in the present case appointed according to a fair procedure? Did they lack neutrality vis-à-vis the parties? What was the weight given to their statements by the first-instance court? Were the applicants’ objections concerning the lack of neutrality of local expert witnesses duly considered by the courts? (see, mutatis mutandis , Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v.   Iceland , no.   31930/04, §§ 28-53, 5 July 2007, and Letinčić v. Croatia , no.   7183/11, §§   65-66, 3 May 2016)?   The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the first-instance proceedings, in particular information concerning the notification of the date and time of the on-site examination to the applicants. LIST OF APPLICANTS No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative   Abdulaziz KABAR 1932 Turkish Diyarbakır Ö.Y. Biçen   Abdulkerim KABAR 1953 Turkish Diyarbakır Ö.Y. Biçen   Fadli KABAR 1956 Turkish Diyarbakır Ö.Y. Biçen