CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 mars 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   163 3.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BOZCAADA KİMİSİS TEODOKU RUM ORTODOKS KİLİSESİ VAKFI v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfi v. Turkey (no. 2) (applications nos. 37639/03, 37655/03, 26736/04 and 42670/04).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the refusal of the Turkish courts to register the immovable property of the applicant foundation in the land register in its name.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 100,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfı (Foundation of the Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Greek Orthodox Church) is a foundation under Turkish law based in Çanakkale (Turkey). Its statute complies with the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne on foundations of religious minorities.   The case concerns the impossibility for the applicant foundation to have land and property which it had owned for many years registered in the land register in its name.   The foundation submitted that it had acquired by donation or legacy three pieces of land (of 3,792.54   sq.   m., 2,251.72   sq.   m. and 2,219.69   sq.   m.) and a building 37.82   sq.   m. in area used as a chapel.   In May 1991, the land register was reorganised and the land was divided into a number of plots, each with a new registration number. However, the applicant foundation had not submitted within the time allowed a declaration of its title to the property, as required by Law no. 2762 on foundations. Consequently, the land registry entries did not mention any title recorded in the land register in the applicant’s name, although experts and witnesses had confirmed that the foundation was actually the owner of the properties in question. As the foundation did not lodge an objection within the 30 days allowed by law, the cadastral plans became final.   In 2001 and 2002 the applicant foundation applied to the domestic courts to have its title to the property recorded in the land register. The Turkish courts found, among other rulings, that the applicant foundation, as a legal person, could not obtain ownership of real property by adverse possession because it had not filed the declaration required by Law no. 2762. The foundation lost the case and the courts further ordered title to the disputed property to vest in the Treasury.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 November 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), 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), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant foundation complained in particular of the Turkish courts’ refusal to register its real property in the land register under its name.   Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court considered that the applicant foundation could legitimately have believed that it had satisfied all the requirements for its title to the real property it had owned for a very long time to be recognised. It also noted that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 required, primarily and above all, that interference by a public authority with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be legal.   In the Court’s opinion, the relevant legislative provisions in force were sufficiently clear. Section 14 of the Land Registry Act listed the conditions for acquisition of a property by adverse possession. In addition, Law no. 2762 on foundations, as amended after 2002, recognised the capacity of foundations of religious minorities to acquire property on the basis of possession. Consequently, the Court observed that the Turkish courts’ refusal to register the disputed property in the land register in the applicant’s name could not be regarded as sufficiently foreseeable for the foundation, which had possessed it uninterruptedly for more than 20 years, for the purposes of section 14 of the Land Registry Act.   The Court concluded that the interference complained of was incompatible with the principle of legality. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Articles 6, 9, 13 and 14   Having regard to its finding regarding Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 6, 9, 13 and 14.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.