Search
document

Document text Analytics

GÜNEŞ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 23060/08 • ECHR ID: 001-188055

Document date: November 8, 2018

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 7

GÜNEŞ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 23060/08 • ECHR ID: 001-188055

Document date: November 8, 2018

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 8 November 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 23060/08 Muharrem GÃœNEÅž and O thers against Turkey lodged on 2 May 2008

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a dispute over the ownership of some properties registered in the name of Treasury during a cadastral survey. The applicants ’ objections for these registrations, on the grounds that their title deed acquired in 1951 as a result of court ’ s decision had been disregarded, were rejected by relevant courts.

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that by disregarding a final judgment establishing their property rights, the domestic courts deprived them of their property without compensation.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the registration of the disputed lands in the land register in the name of the Treasury while there was a final court decision ordering the registration of the same lands in the name of the applicants ’ testator violate their right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999 VII; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002 III; and Panorama Ltd and Miličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 69997/10, § 63, 25 July 2017)?

2. Did the applicants ’ claim to have the disputed lands registered in the land register in their testator ’ s name in accordance with the court decision of 24 September 1951 constitute a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In the affirmative, were the applicants deprived of their possession? If so, was that deprivation justified for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants given the apparent absence of compensation (see Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 70, ECHR 1999 ‑ VII; Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2002 ‑ III; and Panorama Ltd and Miličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 69997/10 , §§ 73-74, 25 July 2017)?

APPENDIX

No.

Name

Nationality

Place of residence

Representative

Muharrem GÃœNEÅž

Turkish

Diyarbakır

M. BeÅŸtaÅŸ

Kadri GÃœNEÅž

Turkish

Diyarbakır

M. BeÅŸtaÅŸ

Fikri GÃœNEÅž

Turkish

Diyarbakır

M. BeÅŸtaÅŸ

Ä°hsan GÃœNEÅž

Turkish

Diyarbakır

M. BeÅŸtaÅŸ

Ä°lhami GÃœNEÅž

Turkish

Diyarbakır

M. BeÅŸtaÅŸ

Mehmet GÃœNEÅž

Turkish

Diyarbakır

M. BeÅŸtaÅŸ

Nizamettin GÃœNEÅž

Turkish

Diyarbakır

M. BeÅŸtaÅŸ

Ömer GÜNEŞ

Turkish

Diyarbakır

M. BeÅŸtaÅŸ

Zülfi GÜNEŞ

Turkish

Diyarbakır

M. BeÅŸtaÅŸ

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant