Communicated on 23 January 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 33808/11 Kemal BAYRAM against Turkey lodged on 12 April 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the 10 years ’ statutory time-limit to challenge results of cadastral surveys.

The applicant bought plots of land with registered title deeds in the province of Samsun in 1977. On an unknown date, he built an apartment building on his land and rented it to a third person.

In 1989 a cadastral survey was conducted, following which, in 1992, the plots of land belonging to the applicant were registered in the name of the Treasury with an annotation stating that the applicant owned an apartment building on those plots.

On 14 May 2009 the applicant brought an action before the Samsun civil court of general jurisdiction alleging that the plot of land was erroneously registered in the name of the Treasury during the cadastral survey and that he had become aware of this situation after the administration had sent him a notification for his alleged unlawful occupation of the land in question. He requested the court to annul the title deeds issued in favour of the Treasury and to register the land anew in his name. The applicant ’ s action was rejected by the Samsun civil court of general jurisdiction and eventually by the Court of Cassation ’ s decision dated 23 November 2010 for failure to observe the 10 years ’ statutory time-limit.

Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that he was deprived of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, namely the plots of land located in Samsun, as a result of arbitrary and erroneous decisions rendered by the local authorities and the domestic courts .

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

Did the deprivation of property in question pursue a legitimate aim? In particular, what were the reasons for registration of the plots of land in question with the title of the Treasury following the cadastral survey? Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?

2. Having regard to the State ’ s positive obligation to ensure in its domestic legal system that property rights are sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies are provided whereby the victim of an interference can seek to vindicate his rights, including, where appropriate, by claiming damages in respect of any loss sustained (see Blumberga v. Latvia , no. 70930/01, § 67, 14 October 2008), was the applicant afforded a reasonable opportunity of challenging effectively the measures depriving him of his right to property?

In this context, has the applicant been informed about the deprivation of his title deed properly?

According to the national law and practice, following a cadastral survey, are the land records which have not been revised ( revizyon görmemiş kayıtlar ) displayed with the results of the cadastral survey or are they advertised somewhere in any way?