CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 juillet 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   511 8.07.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TURGUT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Turgut and Others v. Turkey (application no. 1411/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court found that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not yet ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   Nihal Ayser Turgut, Tevfik Güneş, Turgay Güneş, Saffet Güneş, Nermin Solmaz Güneş, Ayşe Ayata and Hurşit Güneş are Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul and Ankara. They were born in 1926, 1923, 1924, 1930, 1935, 1912 and 1957 respectively.   The case concerned land of more than 100,000 square metres in the village of Kefken, Kandıra (Turkey), which the applicants claim has been owned by their families for more than three generations.   In January 1962 the Ministry of Forestry and the Treasury brought proceedings before the Kandıra Cadastral Court to have the title to the land in question annulled. In a judgment of 29   June 1972 the court found that the land was part of the State forest and that it could not be privately owned.   In July 1974, following an amendment of Turkish legislation on the delimitation of forests, the case was referred back to the court for new expert opinions concerning the disputed land. In November 1977, based on expert reports it had commissioned, the court ordered the land to be registered in the land register under the applicants’ names.   On 28   March 1978 the Court of Cassation, considering the expert reports insufficient, remitted the case to the court. New expert reports concluded that the land was located within the perimeter of the State forest. In a judgment of 8   May 2001 the court ruled that the land was part of the State forest and ordered its registration in the land register as property belonging to the Treasury. The court based its decision on experts’ reports, on the principle emerging from the case-law of the Court of Cassation to the effect that title to property forming part of the national forestry domain had no legal value and on the constitutional principle of the inalienability of ownership of State forests. That judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 18   November 2001. In April 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed a revision request lodged by the applicants.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 October 2002. A public hearing was held in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 April 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Rıza Türmen (Turkish), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that the Turkish courts’ decision to register the Treasury as the owner of land which was rightfully theirs, without any compensation being paid to them, constituted a disproportionate interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They observed, among other things, that 50-odd private housing units and a military holiday camp for officers in the armed forces had been built on the disputed land from the 1970s onwards.   Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court first noted that it was not in dispute that, until the annulment of their title and re-registration in the name of the Treasury, the applicants had been the rightful owners of the property, with all the consequences arising from their title, and that they had further benefitted from “legal certainty” as to the validity of the title recorded on the land register, which provided undisputable evidence of ownership.   The Court then observed that the applicants had been deprived of their property by a judicial decision. Having regard to the reasons given by the domestic courts, the Court considered that the purpose of the deprivation imposed on the applicants, namely the protection of nature and forests, fell within the public interest. In the Court’s view, economic imperatives and even certain fundamental rights, including the right of property, should not be placed before considerations relating to environmental protection, in particular when there was legislation on the subject.   However, the Court reiterated that the taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value normally constituted a disproportionate interference, and a total lack of compensation could be considered justifiable only in exceptional circumstances. The Court noted that the applicants had not received any compensation for the transfer of their property to the Treasury. Nor had the Turkish Government relied on any exceptional circumstance in order to justify that total lack of compensation.   Consequently, the Court considered that the failure to award the applicants any compensation had upset, to their detriment, the fair balance that had to be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of individual rights. There had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.