CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 septembre 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s69BE5A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3BCCA86F { width:107.96%; border-collapse:collapse } .s1B5E5BBA { width:7.2%; 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 } .s14D40D65 { width:30.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3979AC19 { width:19.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE9E2AFE2 { width:23.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD604ECD3 { width:7.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD5DC9A7 { width:30.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s126F01E6 { width:19.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6A1D1FD6 { width:23.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 21 October 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18314/20 Muhammet Can SOLMAZ and Others against Türkiye lodged on 16 April 2020 communicated on 30 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the classification following a cadastral survey of the land that the applicants claimed to be in their possession as forest belonging to the State and the alleged lack of a reasonable opportunity for the applicants to challenge that measure. Following the completion of the cadastral survey, which took place between 2007 and 2008, the land, which the applicants claim to be in their possession since 1937, was classified as a forest. In 2012, the applicants brought a civil action and requested the quashing of the outcome of the cadastral survey. The first instance court dismissed the case on the ground that the applicants failed to object to the outcome of the cadastral survey within the negative prescription time-limit, although it accepted that the land met the requirements to be classified as 2B land, which could have enabled the applicants to acquire it on favourable terms because of the possession they claimed to exercise over it. The Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ appeal. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain that the cadastral survey was not carried out properly as the land was not classified as 2B land and their possession was not mentioned. They further complain that they had been denied the opportunity to file an objection in due time as the outcome of the cadastral survey had not been published. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Taking into account that the applicants claim to have used the land since 1937, did the applicants have a “legitimate expectation” with regard to the right to acquire the land under favourable tariff conditions and thus a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ipseftel v. Turkey , no. 18638/05, §§   48 ‑ 59, 26 May 2015)?   2.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions?   In particular, have the applicants been afforded a reasonable opportunity to challenge effectively the measures depriving them of their possessions and to obtain an adequate redress (see Blumberga v. Latvia , no. 70930/01, §   67, 14 October 2008, and Elif Kızıl v. Turkey , no. 4601/06, §§ 89 et   98-102, 24   March 2020)? Was the application of the time-limit foreseeable? Was the outcome of the cadastral survey notified or published?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the outcome of the cadastral survey duly published or notified? Was the domestic courts’ approach to the procedural rules for the prescription time-limit foreseeable (see, mutatis mutandis , Kurşun v. Turkey , no. 22677/10, §§   103-104, 30   October 2018)?   APPENDIX List of applicants: No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Muhammet Can SOLMAZ 1999 Turkish Samsun 2. Samet AKIN 1999 Turkish Samsun 3. Serhat AKIN 1992 Turkish Samsun 4. Rengi Sefa GÖKŞAN 1975 Turkish Isparta 5. Seda KARA 1988 Turkish Samsun 6. Dursun Ali SOLMAZ 1970 Turkish Samsun 7. Mustafa SOLMAZ 1995 Turkish Samsun 8. Neriman SOLMAZ 1942 Turkish Samsun 9. Tuğce SOLMAZ 1994 Turkish Samsun 10. Uğur SOLMAZ 1979 Turkish Samsun 11. Pamuk UÇAR 1975 Turkish Samsun