LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
AKBıYıK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 18541/11 • ECHR ID: 001-181541
Document date: February 12, 2018
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
AKBıYıK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 18541/11 • ECHR ID: 001-181541
Document date: February 12, 2018
Cited paragraphs only
Communicated on 12 February 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 18541/11 Fadim AKBIYIK and others against Turkey lodged on 21 December 2010
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the impossibility for the applicants, due to the application of a time-limit, to recover a plot of land which, according to a court decision, was wrongfully registered as belonging to the Treasury.
The applicants complain of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the m eaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They further complain of a breach of their right to access to court within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Did the impossibility to recover the property which, according to the court decision rendered in 1980, was wrongfully registered as belonging to the Treasury, deprive the applicants of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
If so, did that deprivation impose an excessive burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59 , ECHR 1999 ‑ V). Furthermore, did the proceedings at issue afford the applicants a reasonable opportunity of putting their cases to the relevant authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures interfering with the rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention ( Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece , no. 44769/07 , §§ 36-38, 5 November 2009 ?
2. 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, was the application of this time-limit foreseeable?
N o .
Firstname LASTNAME
Birth year
Nationality
Place of residence
Fadim AKBIYIK
1931Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
AyÅŸe METE
1954Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
Mehmet Salih TÃœRKEÅž
1948Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
Abdullah VARDAL
1950Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
Ali Rıza VARDAL
1956Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
Orhan VARDAL
1962Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
Abdullah YAVAÅž
1941Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
Ali Rıza YAVAŞ
1938Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
AyÅŸe YAVAÅž
1945Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
Fatma YAVAÅž
1927Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
Hediye YAVAÅž
1964Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
Hüseyin YAVAŞ
1944Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
Mehmet YAVAÅž
1926Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
Önder YAVAŞ
1962Turkish
DENÄ°ZLÄ°
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
