CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 juin 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 99 July 2007 Fener Rum Patrikliği (Ecumenical Patriarchy) v. Turkey - 14340/05 Decision 12.6.2007 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Annulment of original title and registration of property in the name of a foundation which had the use of the property: admissible   Article 14 Discrimination Deprivation of property despite the fact that the immovable property of non-Muslim minorities in Turkey is protected by agreements under international law: admissible   In 1902 the applicant acquired a piece of land with two buildings on it. Ownership of the property was officially transferred to it under Ottoman law governing real estate at the time. A foundation of the Orthodox minority (the Orphanage) was given the use of the property and that fact was recorded in the land register. When the Foundations Act entered into force the legal personality of the Orphanage was officially recognised and the property concerned was mentioned in its declaration. In 1964 the Turkish authorities ordered the Orphanage to vacate the premises and the applicant maintains that it took over possession and management of the property again at that time. The General Directorate of Foundations issued a decision excluding the Orphanage from the category of State-run foundations. In 1997 the Orphanage applied to the authorities to set that decision aside. In 1999 the General Directorate of Foundations, acting on behalf of the Orphanage, took proceedings to have the applicant’s ownership title annulled and the property reregistered under the Orphanage’s name. In 2002, after the Court of Cassation had set aside its first judgment, the District Court ordered the disputed property to be registered in the name of the Orphanage. The Court of Cassation rejected an application to have the judgment reviewed. Admissible under Article   6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1, combined with Article   14 of the Convention.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes