CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 octobre 2005

.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. 79 October 2005 N.A. and Others v. Turkey - 37451/97 Judgment 11.10.2005 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Lack of compensation following the annulment of a property title and the destruction of a building erected on the property: violation   Facts : Having inherited a plot of land on the coast which was entered in the land register, the applicants duly paid all the relevant taxes. After obtaining the necessary administrative permits, they embarked upon the construction of a hotel. When the work was under way, the Public Treasury applied for the registration of the property to be declared invalid and for the demolition of the building. It was successful at first instance on the ground that the applicants’ land was located on the shoreline and, under domestic law, could not be privately acquired. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment. In addition, the applicants were unsuccessful when they claimed damages for the loss of their property rights and for the demolition of the hotel. After pointing out that the shoreline was the property of the State, the domestic courts found that the applicants could not deny that their land was situated on a sandy beach. Moreover, as the land belonged to the State, they considered that its registration in the land register had been unlawful ab initio , and that the applicants could not thus claim any compensation from the State. Law : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – It was not disputed that the applicants had acquired and used the disputed land in good faith. Moreover, they were subsequently deprived of their property by a judicial decision which was not in any way arbitrary and fulfilled a legitimate purpose. However, a total lack of compensation for deprivation of property could only be justified in exceptional circumstances. The Turkish Government had failed to give any such justification in the present case. Accordingly, the total lack of compensation for the applicants had upset, to their detriment, the fair balance that had to be struck between the protection of property and the requirements of the general interest. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: The Court found that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision and reserved it in whole.   © 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