Communicated on 13 December 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 45467/08 Salih GÃœNDOÄžDU against Turkey lodged on 10 September 2008

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the refusal to restitute a plot of land to the applicant, despite the failure of the authorities to comply with the conditions of the donation by which the property was initially transferred to them by the applicant.

The applicant owned an unregistered plot of land without title deeds situated in the district of Kand ıra, Kocaeli .

In 1989, he donated his plot of land to the Treasury subject to condition of construction of a health centre in the village. As the authorities built a health center in another part of the village, the applicant continued his activities on the disputed land.

In 2005, a cadastral survey was conducted in the land. Taking into account the registry records dated 1991, the land was registered in the name of the Treasury in the land registry. The applicant brought proceedings before the domestic courts to recover the possession of the land in dispute which had not been used by the authorities.

However, his request was rejected on the ground that the land in question had been registered in the name of the Treasury in the land registry without any annotation including a clause for construction of a health centre.

The applicant complains that the refusal of the domestic courts to register the plot of land in dispute in his name despite the incompliance of the authorities with the condition of donation violated his rights under Article 1 Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a possession or a legitimate expectation, within the meaning of Article 1 Protocol No. 1, on the land before the impugned donation?

2. In the light of the cases of Karaman v. Turkey (no. 6489/03, 15 January 2008) and Sağlık İnşaat Turizm Sanayi Taahhüt ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti . v. Turkey (( dec. ), no. 55549/11, 7 April 2015), did the refusal to register the disputed land on the name of the applicant constitute a violation of the latter ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession within the meaning of Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as he alleges that the authorities failed to comply with the conditions of donation?

The parties are invited to submit expert reports, preferably obtained under the control of a judge, on the value of the disputed land on 2005, exposing in details the objective datas on which their conclusions are based.

They are also invited to provide the Court with all the relevant documents concerning the case (such as land registry records, documents concerning the current situation of the land in question, etc ).