CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mars 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. 95 March 2007 Apostolidi and Others v. Turkey - 45628/99 Judgment 27.3.2007 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Inability to inherit property situated abroad due to the alleged absence of reciprocal arrangements: violation   Facts : The five applicants are Greek nationals living in Greece. Their aunt, who had acquired Turkish nationality by marriage, died in 1984 without issue. She owned a flat in Turkey, where a plot of land was registered in the land register in her late husband’s name. The Turkish courts registered the land in the name of a foundation. The applicants had the flat registered in their name in the land register after applying for and obtaining an inheritance certificate. They also relied on the certificate to claim title to the land. The Turkish courts applied the rule whereby, as was the case for any foreigner wishing to acquire property in Turkey, they could acquire it by inheritance only if Turkish nationals had the same entitlement in Greece. The Turkish courts considered that this condition of reciprocity was not satisfied in the present case and that the applicants did not therefore have the capacity to inherit the land that they claimed was theirs. For the same reason the instrument of title that the applicants had obtained in respect of the flat was annulled. Law : There was no evidence to show that the title to the land had been transferred to the deceased at a given time and on the basis of a valid instrument under domestic law, such as to enable the applicants lawfully to seek the registration of the land in their names as heirs. The applicants did not therefore have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). By contrast, the flat had been registered at the land registry in the name of the deceased at the date of her death. It was then registered in the applicants’ names on the basis of a certificate of inheritance establishing an undisputed family relationship with the deceased. The applicants had thus possessed a property right which had been recognised under Turkish law throughout the period of validity of the certificate of inheritance, and which could be characterised as a “possession”. The annulment of the certificate had thus constituted interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. That annulment, founded on the principle of reciprocity, did not satisfy the requirements of lawfulness. Contrary to the findings of the Turkish courts that the condition of reciprocity was not met in Greece, it had not been established that there was any restriction in Greece preventing Turkish nationals from acquiring real property by inheritance. Official documents showed that Turkish nationals had acquired property by inheritance in Greece. Consequently, the interference had not been sufficiently foreseeable. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – Question of just satisfaction reserved.   © 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