Communicated on 7 September 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 43969/06 Necmettin ALPTEKÄ°N and Others against Turkey lodged on 24 October 2006

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the six-month statutory time-limit to challenge results of cadastral surveys.

Upon a forest cadastral survey, the applicants ’ registered land was classified as forest area. The applicants initiated civil proceedings before the Tekirdağ civil court of first instance, seeking the annulment of the outcomes of the cadastral survey. The applicants ’ case was firstly accepted by the civil court of first instance and this decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation.

However, upon the defendant administrations ’ request for rectification, the Court of Cassation quashed the decision for failure to observe the six-month statutory time-limit. In its decision, the Court of Cassation stated that Law no. 3373, which determined a new statutory time-limit as 10 years was not applicable, as it had come into force after the cadastral survey had been conducted. It further noted that the fact that Law no. 3373 had come into force before the outcome of the cadastral survey was promulgated did not have any effect to reach a different conclusion.

The applicants complain of a violation of their right to access to court within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. They further complain of a breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the rejection of the applicants ’ case due to the time-limit constitute a violation of their right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention? In this context, despite the fact that Law no. 3373, which determined the new statutory time-limit as 10 years came into force before the result of the survey and that it was explicitly marked in the promulgation text of the survey result that the time limit for objection had been 10 years for persons who had had title deeds, was the application of the six-month statutory time-limit foreseeable?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

Did the deprivation of property in question pursue a legitimate aim?

Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?

3. Having regard to the State ’ s positive obligation to ensure in its domestic legal system that property rights are sufficiently protected by law, were the applicants afforded a reasonable opportunity of challenging effectively the measures depriving them of their right to property ( Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece , no. 44769/07, §§ 36-38, 5 November 2009)?

APPENDIX