CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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   542 22.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KÖKTEPE v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Köktepe v. Turkey (application no. 35785/03).   The Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the classification of the applicant’s land as public forest.   The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   Halil İbrahim Köktepe is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Çanakkale (Turkey).   In 1953 the Treasury sold a plot of land in Çanakkale to a private individual. On 26   July 1993 the applicant acquired the land and was issued with a document of title by the General Directorate of Land Registration. Meanwhile, in August 1990 the Forestry Commission had set about officially delimiting the public forest estate, as a result of which part of the plot of land concerned had been included within the boundaries of the public forest.   On 17   July 1996 the applicant applied to the Çanakkale District Court for judicial review of the decision delimiting the public forest areas.   An expert report dated April 1998 found that the disputed land was not part of the public forest estate. In June 2000, however, a new report prepared by another group of experts concluded, as the Forestry Commission had in the delimitation process, that part of the disputed land was public forest.   In a judgment of 16   November 2000 the District Court, in the light of the relevant constitutional provisions and the findings of the second report, dismissed the applicant’s application. An appeal by the applicant to the Court of Cassation was dismissed, as was his subsequent application for rectification of that court’s judgment.   In December 2005 the applicant twice received a suspended sentence of one year and three months’ imprisonment, on one occasion for clearing part of the land without permission and on the other for growing wheat on the cleared land.   Furthermore, in September 2007 the Ministry of Forestry brought an action for the annulment of the applicant’s title to the disputed land and for its registration as Treasury property in the land register. Allowing a request by the Ministry for interim measures, the Turkish courts ordered the Land Registry to add an annotation to the register preventing the transfer of the land to third parties. The proceedings are still pending.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 October 2003. A hearing was held in public 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 applicant complained that his land had been classified as public forest without any compensation being paid to him.   Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court noted that the relevant authorities had ruled in a judicial decision that the disputed land was public forest. The aim pursued in depriving the applicant of his possession, 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.   The Court observed, firstly, that there was no evidence that the applicant had not acted in good faith when acquiring the land in question, which at the time had been indisputably classified as agricultural land. It also pointed out that he had a valid document of title.   Furthermore, as matters stood the applicant, who had purchased a field of farmland, was unable to cultivate or harvest it or to enter into any transaction in respect of the land, despite still having title to it. He therefore had no real possibility of enjoying the land. As a result, the classification of the land as public forest had had the effect of rendering the applicant’s right of property devoid of all substance.   The Court emphasised, in particular, the permanent nature of the delimitation, the lack of any domestic remedy in respect of the situation, the impairment of the full enjoyment of the applicant’s right of property and the lack of compensation.   Accordingly, it considered that the applicant had had to bear an individual and excessive burden which had upset the fair balance that should be struck between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Moreover, the Turkish Government had not cited any exceptional circumstances to justify the total lack of compensation.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     Judges Cabral Barreto and Türmen expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   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.