Published on 23 October 2023
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 54082/21
Hayati MERTOĞLU
against Türkiye
lodged on 26 October 2021
communicated on 6 October 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal to restitute to the applicant his shares in the plots of land which were previously donated to the administration and the sale of the said plots of land to private third parties.
The applicant, along with the other co-owners, donated unconditionally and free of charge his shares in plots of land which were already reserved for public service (road, parking area, green space, health care area, etc.) in the zoning plans, but had not been expropriated.
The applicant claims that – just as the other co-owners – he was forced by the administration to make this donation while he 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 action brought by the applicant for the annulment of the donation or the payment of compensation was dismissed on the grounds that the donation had been made unconditionally and in exchange for the administration creating new parcels for the applicant and granting him the right to high-rise construction on his other plots of land.
The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the refusal to restitute his shares in the plots of land at issue or to pay compensation.
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 a breach of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as the applicant alleged that the donated plots of land which he had shares in had not been used for public interest purposes by the municipality?
2. What is the current use of the plots of land in question?