CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sCDBFE244 { width:125.42%; border-collapse:collapse } .s57307497 { width:6.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s77EC430E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s63ED0B93 { width:37.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2B283C67 { width:21.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAF28489E { width:14.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDDF59F19 { width:20.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s48AA7263 { width:6.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s9610350C { width:37.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s7A9010C4 { width:21.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s93961FB9 { width:14.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6B7B313D { width:20.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sB05A3A55 { width:6.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4B1372A7 { width:37.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAC38887 { width:21.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCAEC9D1A { width:14.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDA7181B3 { width:20.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 27 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6198/18 DİZAYN TEKNİK BORU VE ELEMANLARI SANAYİ VE TİCARET ANONİM ŞİRKETİ and Others against Türkiye lodged on 23 January 2018 communicated on 8 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns allegedly insufficient protection of the applicants’ property rights and the adoption of contradictory judgments by the domestic courts in their treatment of a private law dispute between private parties. The applicants are a company (the first applicant) and two natural persons (the second and third applicants, see the appended table). The testator in respect of the second and third applicants (“the testator”) was granted a patent by the Turkish Patent Institution in 1998 for his invention of a floating pipeline designed to transport fluid substances underwater. He was allegedly the author of the project which was prepared for the purpose of transferring water from Türkiye to the island of Cyprus via an underwater pipeline. The testator, the first applicant company ( Dizayn Teknik Boru ve Elemanları Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi ) and a third-party company (“A.   company”) agreed to form a consortium to implement the testator’s project. In 1997, the project was presented to the State Ministry at a meeting attended by the testator. In 2004, the A. company filed a patent application for an invention of a similar nature to the testator’s patented design and was subsequently granted a patent on an unspecified date. In 2005, a contract for the implementation of the water transfer project from Türkiye to the island of Cyprus was awarded to a consortium led by the A.   company, which did not include the testator or the applicant company. In 2007, the testator transferred all rights conferred by his patent to the applicant company. In 2007, the testator and the applicant company lodged an action for compensation with the Istanbul 1st Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Court against the A.   company. They sought a declaration that their patent and copyright had been infringed, an order for the prevention and cessation of the allegedly unlawful acts, as well as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In 2008, the testator and the applicant company, initiated proceedings before the Istanbul 4th Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Court, requesting the A.   company’s patent to be declared null and void. On 15   March 2012 the domestic court annulled the A.   company’s patent. On 21 September 2012 the Istanbul 1st Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Court dismissed the testator’s and the first applicant’s claims after separately assessing the allegations concerning copyright, patent infringement and unfair competition based on expert opinions. Regarding the patent infringement claim, the domestic court determined that the elements described in the A.   company’s patent application were not equivalent to those in the applicants’ patent. The court further reasoned that the invalidation of the A.   company’s patent in March 2012 had no impact on the contract for the water transfer project, as the decision delivered on 15   March 2012 was not yet final. On 4 June 2013 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Istanbul 4th   Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Court nullifying the A.   company’s patent. On 15 April 2014 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Istanbul 1st Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Court. Following the testator’s death, the applicants lodged an individual application before the Constitutional Court, alleging violations of their right to a fair trial and of their right to property. On 15 June 2017 the Constitutional Court declared their complaints manifestly ill-founded. The decision was notified to the applicants on 31 July 2017. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants complain of conflicting judgments delivered by different courts on the same subject matter, the failure of the domestic courts to properly evaluate the evidence, and alleged arbitrariness in the reasoning in the judgments. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants essentially argue that their intellectual property rights have not been adequately protected by the courts as they did not obtain compensation for the violation of their patent rights by the A.   company.     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 this framework, was the principle of legal certainty respected in the impugned proceedings, in view of the judgments of the Court of Cassation dated 15 April 2014 and 4 June 2013 (see for the relevant principles Aydın and Others v Türkiye (dec.), no. 23721/11, §§ 50-61, 16 May 2023, and Rozalia Avram v. Romania , no. 19037/07, § 42, 16 September 2014)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In this context, having regard to the State’s positive obligation to ensure in its domestic legal system that property rights are sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies are provided whereby the victim of an interference can seek to vindicate his rights, including, where appropriate, by claiming damages in respect of any loss sustained (see Blumberga v. Latvia , no. 70930/01, §   67, 14   October 2008), were the applicants afforded an opportunity of challenging effectively the alleged interference with their right to property and obtaining adequate redress? In particular, were the applicants provided with sufficient procedural guarantees during the proceedings before the domestic courts (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR   2007 ‑ I)?   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Dizayn Teknik Boru ve Elemanları Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi 1987 Turkish Istanbul 2. Ayten ORUN 1943 Turkish Istanbul 3. Mesut Sinan ORUN 1977 Turkish Istanbul