SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4802/03
by İsdek BEKTAŞOĞLU
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 December 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr İsdek Bektaşoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Büberal, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Prior to the incidents giving rise to the present application, the applicant was the title holder of some land located in Ümraniye, Istanbul, registered under no. 4-5/1, plot no. 69, and parcel no. 7, with a surface area of 168 square metres.
According to the official records dated 1943, the relevant area was State forest land, over which no private ownership was possible. Nonetheless, in 1944 a large piece of land, including parcel no. 7, was registered in the name of an individual.
In 1962 that land was subjected to a cadastral review and was divided into several plots.
In 1966, the plot which included parcel no. 7 was sold to an individual and registered as an arable field.
In 1985, the authorities conducted a cadastral revision in the area. The revision resulted in the revocation of parcel no. 7’s qualification as forest land. The requalification was made pursuant to Article 2(B) of Law no. 6831, providing that State forest land shall be registered in the name of the Treasury if it loses its scientific nature as forest land.
However, the outcome of the cadastral revision and the rights of the Treasury were not recorded in the land register.
On 21 May 1997 the applicant bought parcel no. 7 from an individual holding title to it. On the same day, the parcel was registered in the name of the applicant and a title deed was issued to him.
On an unspecified date the Treasury filed an action claiming title to the parcel. On 5 February 1998 the Üsküdar Civil Court issued an injunction in favour of the Treasury and ordered the land registry to record the Treasury’s interim rights over the disputed parcel. Accordingly, on 18 February 1998, an annotation (şerh) was made in the land register indicating that the parcel had been reclassified from State forest land to Treasury property.
On 24 February 2000 the Üsküdar Civil Court declared the applicant’s title deed null and void and the Treasury the owner of the disputed land. On 12 June 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld that ruling. On 19 December 2002 the same court denied a request for rectification.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the authorities deprived him of his property without paying compensation.
THE LAW
On 12 September 2006 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government. By a letter dated 15 December 2006, the applicant’s representative, Mr Büberal, was requested to submit his client’s final observations on admissibility and merits, together with any claims for just satisfaction, before 26 January 2007. A reminder was sent to the applicant’s representative on 25 May 2007, by registered post, together with a warning that failure to reply might lead to the application being struck out of the list for lack of interest. No response was received by the Court to any of these letters.
In these circumstances and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the further examination of the case. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the application and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. Dollé F. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy