SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 42781/07 Muammer DEMÄ°R against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 February 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 September 2007,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Muammer Demir, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1950 and lives in MuÄŸla. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Demir, a lawyer practising in Izmir.

2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. The applicant had a plot of land in Ören, in the Milas District of Muğla, which had been registered in the land register as parcel no. 2111.

5. On 13 December 1988 the Municipality of Ören (the Municipality) decided to designate the applicant ’ s land as a primary school area in the local land development plan. An annotation was also made in the land registry indicating the land ’ s status which made it impossible for the applicant to obtain a building permit for his land.

6. On 19 August 1994 the applicant asked the municipal authorities to amend the local land development plan or to expropriate his plot of land. In reply, the Municipality invited the applicant to apply directly to the provincial directorate of national education, as his land would be used for construction of a school building.

7. On 31 August 1994 the applicant applied to the Milas National Education Directorate to have his land expropriated or the land development plan amended. The applicant received no reply.

8. On 20 September 2001 the applicant reiterated his request to the MuÄŸla National Education Directorate (the Directorate). On 11 October 2001 the Directorate informed the applicant that his land was required for construction of a public school and it would be expropriated in the future after providing the necessary funding.

9. On 15 November 2001 and on 5 March 2002 the applicant reiterated his request to the Directorate again, seeking the expropriation of his land or the amendment of the land development plan. The Directorate did not reply to the applicant ’ s request.

10. On an unspecified date, the applicant brought an action before the Muğla Administrative Court and sought the annulment of the Directorate ’ s tacit refusal.

11. On 31 December 2003 the Muğla Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s case. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 18 December 2006 and the final decision was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 18 April 2007.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

12. A description of the domestic law and practice with respect to the Compensation Commission mentioned below (paragraph 16) may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013 and Paksoy and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 19474/10, 7 June 2016.

COMPLAINTS

13. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention on account of the length of the domestic proceedings.

14. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as a result of the restriction imposed on his land, his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been breached.

THE LAW

15. The applicant complained that the domestic proceedings in his case were not concluded within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant also complained that the restriction imposed on his land by the local land development plan constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property.

16. The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established in Turkey to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings, the delayed execution of judgments and the non-execution of judgments. They further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by decrees adopted on 16 March 2014 and 9 March 2016 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged breaches of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of the applicants ’ land for public use in local land development plans. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not made any application to the Compensation Commission.

17. The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey following the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). Subsequently, in its decisions in the cases of Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013) and Paksoy and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 19474/10, 7 June 2016 ), the Court declared the applications inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings and the allocation of the applicants ’ land for public use in local land development plans.

18. The Court notes that in its decision in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77), it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of that type which had already been communicated to the Government.

19. However, taking into account the Government ’ s preliminary objection with regard to the applicant ’ s failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the cases of Turgut and Others and Paksoy and Others , cited above.

20. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the application should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible .

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 March 2017 .

Hasan Bakırcı Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar President