CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2025

.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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Published on 7 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19582/21 Salih YILDIRIM against Türkiye lodged on 2 April 2021 communicated on 19 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the demolition of the unauthorized construction (“ gecekondu ”) built by the applicant on public land and the failure to award compensation for the damage suffered. In 1985, under the terms of relative Law No. 2981 on constructions that did not comply with urban planning legislation, the applicant was issued with a land allocation certificate (“ tapu tahsis belgesi ”) for the public land on which he had built his unauthorized construction. Under certain conditions, such a certificate may enable its holder to purchase the property to which it relates. In 2006, the applicant made a request to acquire the title deed to the land in question, but his request was rejected as the conditions foreseen by the law for the acquisition of the immovable property were not met. The applicant initiated civil proceedings against this decision before the administrative court, which ruled against him in 2014. The relevant administration subsequently issued a demolition order. Although the applicant’s action for the annulment of this order was ultimately successful, the unauthorized construction was demolished during the proceedings. In 2018, the applicant brought another action before the Istanbul 3 rd   Administrative Court, asking for compensation for the damages he had suffered as a result of the unlawful demolition. He requested compensation both for the land he claimed to have lost and for the demolition of the unauthorized construction. The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the immovable property in question did not fall within the category of properties eligible for acquisition under a land allocation certificate but did not make a separate assessment of the damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the demolition of the unauthorized construction. The individual application before the Constitutional Court was found inadmissible ratione materiae . The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he was not awarded compensation for the unlawful demolition of the unauthorized construction and that his claim was rejected without examination. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the failure to notify him of the pleadings in the proceedings before the Istanbul 3 rd Administrative Court regarding his compensation claim violated his right to a fair trial. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of Anat and Others v. Turkey , (no. 37899/04, §§   57-59, 26   April 2011) and   Kaya v. Turke y (no. 28106/10, §§ 66-78, 10   November 2020), was the applicant’s unauthorized construction a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   2.     If so, did the demolition of the property in question and the lack of compensation comply with the requirements of the above-mentioned provision?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the pleadings of the respondents served on the applicant during the proceedings before the Istanbul 3rd Administrative Court, as required by Article 6 of the Convention ( Vorotņikova v. Latvia no. 68188/13, §§ 21-28, 4 February 2021)?