CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s8408AAD1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } Published on 25 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 22245/20 and 22674/20 Fatma ALTINTAŞ and Others against Türkiye lodged on 2 June 2020 communicated on 4 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the Court of Cassation’s refusal to examine the applicants’ appeal on the grounds that it was lodged beyond the seven-day time-limit following notification of the lower court’s decision. They also concern the first-instance court’s alleged failure to duly notify the applicants of the proceedings regarding the ownership of land parcels registered in their names following a cadastral survey, which led the Cadastre Court, in its judgment of 13 January 2014, to register the disputed parcels in the names of other individuals. On 19 March 2015 the applicants lodged an appeal, claiming that they had only become aware of the judicial proceedings and the judgment on that date. However, the first-instance court dismissed their appeal as out of time, holding that both the summons and the judgment had been served on them by way of public notification ( ilanen tebligat ). This decision was itself subject to appeal. However, in that ruling, the Cadastre Court erroneously stated that the appeal deadline was fifteen days from notification instead of seven, leading to the Court of Cassation’s dismissal of the applicants’ appeal as out of time. By decisions of 9 December 2019 and 30 December 2019, the Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ individual applications inadmissible. The applicants submit that, although they complied with the fifteen-day time-limit for lodging an appeal, the Court of Cassation applied the procedural rules in an overly formalistic manner. They further maintain that their actual addresses were duly recorded in the central address registration system (“MERNİS”), but the domestic courts failed to verify this information and instead proceeded with service by way of public notification in the press. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that these procedural failures prevented the courts from examining the merits of their claims, thus depriving them of their right of access to a court. Furthermore, they complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that, as a consequence of the lack of proper judicial examination, parcels of land registered in their names in the cadastral register were transferred to third parties without their participation in the proceedings, thereby violating their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. 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?   In particular, did the Court of Cassation’s dismissal of the applicants’ appeal on grounds of non-compliance with the time-limit amount to a violation of their right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention (see Gajtani v. Switzerland , no.   43730/07, §§ 61-64, 69 and 75, 9   September 2014, and compare with Clavien v. Switzerland (dec.), no.   16730/15, §§   15-29, 12   September 2017)?   Furthermore, were the applicants able to participate effectively in the proceedings at issue, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In   particular, did the domestic courts take the necessary measures to inform them of the judicial proceedings brought against them (see, for the general principles, Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey , nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, §§   76-80, 4 March 2014, Aparicio Navarro Reverter and García San Miguel y Orueta v.   Spain , no.   39433/11, §§ 34-35, 10   January 2017, and Marina Aucanada Group S.L. v. Spain , no. 7567/19, §§ 39-45, 8   November 2022)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural requirements of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention, did the applicants have at their disposal adequate remedies enabling them to assert their rights (see, generally, Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece , no. 44769/07, §§   36-37, 5   November 2009; Gereksar and Others v. Turkey , nos.   34764/05 and 3   others, §§   47-54, 1   February 2011; and Saraç and Others v. Turkey , no.   23189/09, §§   70 ‑ 75, 30 March 2021)?       APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 22245/20 Altıntaş and Others v. Türkiye 02/06/2020 Fatma ALTINTAŞ 1952 İzmir Turkish Ufuk ALTINTAŞ 1966 İzmir Turkish Gökhan ALTINTAŞ 1976 İzmir Turkish Hasan ALTINTAŞ 1972 İzmir Turkish Latif ALTINTAŞ 1936 İzmir Turkish   Mehmet ALTINTAŞ 1950 İzmir Turkish   Ömriye ALTINTAŞ 1953 İzmir Turkish Işık ARIK 1970 İzmir Turkish Ali ERKENÇİFTÇİ 2013 İzmir Turkish Kamil ERKENÇİFTÇİ 1967 İzmir Turkish Tuğçe ERKENÇİFTÇİ 1991 İzmir Turkish Işılay GÜVEN 1974 İzmir Turkish   Hüsniye ÖZBEY 1936 İzmir Turkish   Zeyneb Sümeyye EKER 2. 22674/20 Altıntaş and Others v. Türkiye 02/06/2020 Fatma ALTINTAŞ 1952 İzmir Turkish Ufuk ALTINTAŞ 1966 İzmir Turkish Gökhan ALTINTAŞ 1976 İzmir Turkish Hasan ALTINTAŞ 1972 İzmir Turkish Latif ALTINTAŞ 1936 İzmir Turkish Mehmet ALTINTAŞ 1950 İzmir Turkish Ömriye ALTINTAŞ 1953 İzmir Turkish     Işık ARIK 1970 İzmir Turkish   Ali ERKENÇİFTÇİ 2013 İzmir Turkish Kamil ERKENÇİFTÇİ 1967 İzmir Turkish Tuğçe ERKENÇİFTÇİ 1991 İzmir Turkish Işılay GÜVEN 1974 İzmir Turkish Hüsniye ÖZBEY 1936 İzmir Turkish Zeyneb Sümeyye EKER