CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 octobre 2006

.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. 90 October 2006 Börekçioğulları (Çökmez) and Others v. Turkey - 58650/00 Judgment 19.10.2006 [Section III] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Absence of compensation for de facto occupation and subsequent transfer of property title to the State due to 20 years’ statutory limitation period: violation   Facts : In 1990 the applicants inherited a plot of land which was being used by the Ministry of Defence as a military base. In 1991 they brought an action for compensation claiming that the Ministry had not conducted expropriation proceedings or compensated them for the damage resulting from the illegal occupation of the land. In 1996 the court held that the Ministry had been in actual possession of the land since 1942 and rejected the case as being time-barred. The applicants continued to pay the land tax every year, until the court’s further decision of 1998 by which their title to the land in question was transferred to the State. In 2003 the Constitutional Court annulled the law provision concerning the limitation period as being unconstitutional. Law : In addition to the conclusions of the Constitutional Court, the European Court noted that the impugned law provision had not provided adequate protection of the landowners as it had required them to claim compensation for deprivation of property rather than obliged the authorities to pay it automatically. Moreover, the fact that the time-limit for claiming compensation ran from de facto occupation had allowed the administration to benefit from a situation already existing when the relevant law had entered into force. The application of the relevant law provision by the domestic authorities had had the consequence of depriving the applicants of the possibility of obtaining damages for the annulment of their title. In the absence of adequate compensation in exchange for their property, the interference in question, although prescribed by law, had not struck a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The Court made an award in respect of pecuniary damage (EUR 373,000).   © 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