Published on 30 October 2023
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 55248/21
Özkan DALYAN and Others
against Türkiye
lodged on 26 October 2021
communicated on 11 October 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal to restitute to the applicants plots of lands they previously donated to the administration and the sale of the land to private third parties.
The applicants donated unconditionally and free of charge their plots of land which were already reserved for public service (road, parking area, green space, health care area, etc.) in the zoning plans but were not expropriated.
The applicants claim that they were forced by the administration to make this donation while they assumed that the land would be used in accordance with the purposes specified in the zoning plans at the relevant time. The plots of land were later sold to third parties by the administration following amendments made in the zoning plans.
The civil proceedings brought by the applicants for the annulment of the donation and compensation was dismissed on the grounds that the donation had been made unconditionally. The domestic court also pointed out that when the applicants donated their plots of land, the administration changed zoning plans and granted high-rise construction rights in respect of the applicants’ other plots of lands.
The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In the light of the cases of Karaman v. Turkey (no. 6489/03, §§ 24 ss., 15 January 2008) and Sağlık İnşaat Turizm Sanayi Taahhüt ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 55549/11, §§ 34 ss., 7 April 2015), has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as the applicants alleged that the plots of land they donated had not been used for public interest purposes by the municipality? If so,
i. Was this interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law?
ii. Did such interference strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individuals’ fundamental rights?
iii. In the light of the Court’s findings in the Karaman judgment (cited above, §§ 30 ss.), did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?
2. What is the current use of the plots of land?
3. Considering the applicants’ claim that they believed the plots of land would be used in accordance with the public service purposes specified in the zoning plans when they made the donations, could this donation be considered as conditional as the applicants argue?
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Özkan DALYAN
1963
Turkish
Samsun
2.
İnci AYDOĞAN
1965
Turkish
Samsun
3.
Yasemin ÇELİK
1979
Turkish
Samsun
4.
Aşur DALYAN
1968
Turkish
Samsun
5.
Bayram DALYAN
1968
Turkish
Samsun
6.
Caner DALYAN
1993
Turkish
Samsun
7.
Cengiz DALYAN
1962
Turkish
Samsun
8.
Ceyhun DALYAN
1998
Turkish
Samsun
9.
Dursune DALYAN
1945
Turkish
Samsun
10.
Galip DALYAN
1966
Turkish
Samsun
11.
Güliz DALYAN
1973
Turkish
Samsun
12.
Hatice DALYAN
1973
Turkish
Samsun
13.
Necla DALYAN
1951
Turkish
Samsun
14.
Nimet DALYAN
1971
Turkish
Samsun
15.
Tarık DALYAN
1981
Turkish
Samsun
16.
Yaşar DALYAN
1973
Turkish
Samsun
17.
Zekiye DALYAN
1971
Turkish
Samsun
18.
Ülker DALYAN EROL
1967
Turkish
Samsun
19.
Münevver DUMAN
1964
Turkish
Samsun
20.
Emine ERASLAN
1976
Turkish
Samsun
21.
Makbule ERASLAN
1976
Turkish
Samsun
22.
Ünzüle KABADAYI
1965
Turkish
Samsun
23.
Kerime KIZKAYA
1963
Turkish
Samsun
24.
Mükerrem KOÇ
1962
Turkish
Samsun
25.
Güldeniz OCAK
1969
Turkish
Samsun
26.
Sevinç ÖZTÜRK
1976
Turkish
Tokat
27.
Ülkü SOYLU
1965
Turkish
Samsun
28.
Davut YILDIRIM
1973
Turkish
Samsun
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy