Communicated on 25 January 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 888/10 Rıza ALTUNTAŞ against Turkey lodged on 9 December 2009

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns registration of a plot of land located in the quarter of Fidanlı , in the Sürmene District of Trabzon (block no. 275, parcel no. 71) in the land register in the name of the Treasury as part of the public forest estate.

In 2007, upon a cadastral survey, the disputed plot of land was registered in the applicant ’ s name in accordance with the law on adverse possession. However the forest administration objected to the outcome of the survey before the Sürmene Cadastral Court and sought the registration of the land as belonging to the Treasury alleging that it was part of the public forest estate. During these proceedings the applicant claimed that he was the owner of the land according to his predecessor ’ s title deed which had been issued on 16 August 1949. Following an order by the cadastral court, an expert report was submitted to the case file in which it was indicated that the boundaries of the land as indicated in the title deed could not have been determined due to lack of information. On 23 December 2008 the Sürmene Cadastral Court found in favour of the forest administration. 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 applicant ’ s argument concerning the existence of a title deed to the disputed land.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not examine his submissions about the existence of a title deed to the land in question. He further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that, as a result of the classification of his land as part of the public forest area, he was deprived of his property without receiving any compensation.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. In the light of the Court ’ s relevant case-law (see, among others, Turgut and Others v. Turkey , no. 1411/03, § 89, 8 July 2008) does the title deed of the applicant ’ s predecessor constitute a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

2. Following the Sürmene Cadastral Court ’ s decision of 23 December 2008, has it been possible for the applicant to dispose of the immovable property corresponding to his predecessor ’ s title deed? 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?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of his 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 applicant given the apparent absence of compensation? Furthermore was the applicant afforded judicial procedures that offer the necessary procedural guarantees in the adjudication of his claim (see Gereksar and Others v. Turkey , nos. 34764/05 and 3 others, § 51, 1 February 2011) ?

4. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his 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 his argument about the existence of a title deed to the disputed plot of land?