Communicated on 13 June 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 4529/06 Nevzer ZORLU and others against Turkey lodged on 20 December 2005

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns compensation proceedings brought by the applicants against private contractors in respect of the losses they suffered when their buildings collapsed in the earthquake of 17 August 1999.

On 19 July 2001 the Yalova Civil Court rejected the applicants ’ actions ruling that the claims for damages against the contractors of the buildings were time-barred. The 13 th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments rendered in respect of applicants, on 25 May, 14 June and 21 June 2004 respectively, and on 13 September 2005 in the case of the applicant, Nevzer Zorlu . All applicants except for three (Can Erdo ğ an, S ü leyman Erdo ğ an and Nevzer Zorlu ) sought before the First Presidency of the Court of Cassation the harmonisation of the case-law concerning the application of the statute of limitations arguing that as opposed to the 13 th Civil Chamber, the 4 th Civil Chamber quashed judgments where claims had been rejected for being time-barred. On 23 June 2005, the First Presidency of the Court of Cassation decided to reject their request, a decision which was not subject to appeal.

The applicants complain that the disparities between the case-law of the different chambers of the Court of Cassation and the rejection of their request for harmonisation without adequate reasoning undermined the principle of legal certainty and therefore violated their right to have a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants further maintain that the rejection of their claims for damages solely on the basis of the statute of limitations violated their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the alleged divergence between the case-law of the 13 th and 4 th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation and the First Presidency of the Court of Cassation ’ s refusal of the applicants ’ request for the harmonisation of the case-law violate the applicants ’ right to have a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Hayati Çelebi and Others v. Turkey , no. 582/05 , 9 February 2016) ?

2. In the affirmative, did the rejection of the applicants ’ claims for being time-barred violate their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, 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) ?

APPENDIX