CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1CAE9AF5 { width:84.82%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB47D167C { width:9.14%; 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 } .s3ADD95CA { width:36.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4C65C6A3 { width:27.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE3EA6768 { width:27.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D354C { width:9.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1259D3CC { width:36.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2DCCB003 { width:27.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sECA41761 { width:27.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 28 August 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6233/18 Zahide DENİZ and Others against Türkiye lodged on 3 January 2018 communicated on 10 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the cancellation of the title deed of the applicants, based on findings that the cadastral commission that delivered the title at the end of a cadastral survey in 1988 abused its power in similar inspections in the same area. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, in view of the Court’s relevant case-law ( Gladysheva v. Russia , no. 7097/10, §§ 64-83, 6 December 2011; Semenov v.   Russia , no. 17254/15, §§ 59-72, 16 March 2021; Vukušić v.   Croatia , no.   69735/11, §§ 60-70, 31 May 2016; Beinarovič and Others v.   Lithuania, nos.   70520/10, 21920/10 and 41876/11, §§ 138-164, 12 June 2018; and Belova v. Russia , no. 33955/08, §§ 32 ‑ 45, 15 September 2020), did the interference strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicants within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Within this framework, did the applicants act as bona fide buyers? LIST OF APPLICANTS No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. Zahide DENİZ 1934 Turkish 2. Semih DENİZ 1957 Turkish 3. Merih PALAOĞLU 1962 Turkish