Communicated on 26 January 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 38851/10 Kemal DEMIR and Mehmet DEMIR against Turkey lodged on 18 May 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE

The application concerns registration of two plots of land located in the village of Gömemiş , in the Merkez District of Tunceli (block no. 116, parcels nos. 46 and 85) in the land register in the name of the Treasury as part of the public forest estate.

In 2005, upon a cadastral survey, the disputed plots of land were registered in the applicants ’ name depending on the law on adverse possession. However the forest administration objected to the outcomes of the survey before the Tunceli Cadastral Court and sought the registration of the plots of land as belonging to the Treasury alleging that they were part of the public forest estate. During these proceedings the applicants claimed that they were owner of the land according to their predecessor ’ s title deed which had been issued in 1945. On 19 June 2009 the Tunceli Cadastral Court found in favour of the forest administration and ordered that the disputed plots of land be registered in the land register in the name of the Treasury as part of the public forest estate. The decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation. In their decisions, neither the cadastral court nor the Court of Cassation gave an answer to the applicants ’ argument concerning the existence of a title deed to the disputed plots of land.

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not examine their submissions about the existence of a title deed to the plots of land in question. They further complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that, as a result of the classification of their land as part of the public forest area, they were deprived of their property without receiving any compensation.

QUESTIONS to the parties

1. Following the Tunceli Cadastral Court ’ s decision of 19 June 2009, has it been possible for the applicants to dispose of the immovable property corresponding to their predecessor ’ s title deed of 1945 ( kânunsanî 945 )? In this regard what was the effect of section 12 § 4 of Law no. 3402 on effective use of the rights deriving from the said title deed?

2. Did the title deed of the applicants ’ predecessor constitute a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, has there been an interference with the applicants ’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions? In the affirmative, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants given the apparent absence of compensation? Furthermore were the applicants afforded judicial procedures that offer the necessary procedural guarantees in the adjudication of their claims (see Gereksar and Others v. Turkey , nos. 34764/05 and 3 others, § 51, 1 February 2011) ?

3. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as the domestic courts delivered decisions without responding to their argument about the existence of a title deed to the disputed plots of land?