Communicated on 20 December 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 9161/07 Ali DEMÄ° R against Turkey lodged on 15 February 2007

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a dispute over the ownership of a plot of land located in the village of Ömerli , in the Pozantı District of Adana (block no. 101, parcel no. 536). On 29 January 2002, following a case brought by the applicant relying on the law on adverse possession, the Pozantı Civil Court of First Instance ruled that a part of the plot of land measuring 2,760 sq. m be registered in the land register in the name of the applicant . Even though the decision of 29 January 2002 became final on 7 November 2002, the disputed land, including the part which had been the subject matter of the decision of 29 January 2002, was registered in the land register in the name of the Treasury as part of the public forest estate. Upon that registration, relying on res judicata effect of the decision of 29 January 2002, the applicant brought another case against the Treasury and the forest administration seeking the annulment of the Treasury ’ s title deed. However the case was dismissed on the ground that the decision of 29 January 2002 did not have res judicata effect in respect of the forest administration since the latter had not been a party to the case in which the decision of 29 January 2002 had been given.

The ap plicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Prot ocol No. 1 to the Convention that by disregarding a final judgment establishing his property rights, the domestic courts deprived him of his property without compensation.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the registration of the disputed land in the land register in the name of the Treasury as part of the public forest estate while there was a final court decision ordering the registration of a part of 2,760 sq. m of the same land in the name of the applicant violate his right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999 ‑ VII; Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002 ‑ III; and Panorama Ltd and Miličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 69997/10 , § 63, 25 July 2017) ?

2. Did the applicant ’ s claim to have a part of 2,760 sq. m of the disputed land registered in the land register in his name depending on the final court decision of 29 January 2002 constitute a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In the affirmative, was the applicant deprived of his possession within the meaning of the same Article? If so, was that deprivation justified for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant given the apparent absence of compensation (see Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 70, ECHR 1999 ‑ VII; Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2002 ‑ III ; and Panorama Ltd and Miličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 69997/10 , §§ 73-74, 25 July 2017) ?