SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33569/08
Adil ÖZADAM against Turkey
and 12 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and, Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the applications, the dates of introduction and numbers of which are listed in the appendix,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A list of the 24 applicants is set out in the appendix.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants and appearing from the case files, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants claimed to have acquired ownership of the lands in question by prescription or to have been granted property rights through unregistered transfers or assignments by third parties who themselves had acted as rightful owners based on acquisitive prescription.
The applicants, transferors or assignors did not have any title or caution registered at the land registry.
The ledgers (and not title deeds) that the applicants mentioned in their submissions to the Court in the applications nos. 21734/10 and 3475/10 had not been relied on before the domestic authorities.
The applicants initiated civil proceedings against the cadastral surveys and planning as well as the registration of the lands in the registry in the name of the Treasury as forest.
In application no. 33569/08 the applicant’s tractor was confiscated and criminal proceedings were issued against him on suspicion of the offence of clearing of a forested area for agricultural use.
The applicants’ cases were rejected on the grounds that ownership of forests could not be transferred or acquired by way of prescription. In some of these cases, whether the other legal conditions (namely, an uninterrupted and unopposed possession or use in the role of owner for the period specified by law), were fulfilled was also disputed.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Articles 6 of the Convention and/or 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had been legally entitled to the lands in question; that the lands concerned had not been within forest areas and that accordingly they should have been registered in their names. The applicants added that they had not received a fair trial as they had been deprived of their possessions.
In application nos. 17967/10 and 32080/10, the applicants complained that they had not been able to use their own property for years due to the unjustified interference by the administration and the ensuing proceedings. In application no. 23698/10 the applicant called into question the fact that he had not been personally notified of the outcome of cadastral survey and planning operations and that instead, a public announcement had been made pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations. He also relied on Article 13.
THE LAW
The Court first of all considers that, pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given the similar factual and legal backgrounds. It also considers that all of the applicant’s complaints should be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court has already examined in Usta v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 32212/11, ECHR 27 November 2012) the question of whether, in these situations, there was a sufficient basis in domestic law for an applicant’s claim to qualify as an asset for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and it concluded that under the relevant provision of the Turkish Constitution, it is not possible to obtain entitlement to forest land by possession or to transfer the ownership of it to third parties.
In the present cases, the Court sees no reason to depart from its findings in the decision cited above. With regard to the constitutional protection afforded to forests in Turkish law, the legal position of the applicants and the lands in question, the Court concludes that the applicants’ claims cannot be regarded as an asset within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
It follows that the applications are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Seçkin ErelPeer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
33569/08
01/07/2008
Adil ÖZADAM
25/05/1962 Uşak
37867/08
29/07/2008
Mustafa ÇAKICI
28/01/1948 Adana
Muzaffer KAYA
60108/09
02/11/2009
Vahit CANBAZOĞLU
25/10/1929 Kastamonu
Şevket Şahap İNCE
65027/09
19/11/2009
Osman EĞRİKÜLAH
15/02/1950 Urla
Erol ÇAKIR
3475/10
10/01/2010
Cemil MAĞRUR
01/01/1958 Şırnak
Mağrur KASIM
01/01/1956 Şırnak
Tahir ELÇİ
17967/10
05/03/2010
Hamdi KARANFİL
10/08/1948 İstanbul
İsmet ATAY
21734/10
29/03/2010
Yaşar KESKİN
01/01/1962 İstanbul
Sinan NAİPOĞLU
23698/10
19/04/2010
Halil İbrahim TERZİOĞLU
12/10/1933 Balıkesir
32080/10
12/05/2010
Ahmet GÜLTAŞ
03/03/1984 İzmir
Zakire GÜLTAŞ (ÇERİ)
05/04/1979
Fatma GÜLTAŞ
19/03/1987
Ayşe DÜLÜSTAN
Ömer GÜLTAŞ
Suat AYDINER
54004/10
10/08/2010
Cemil KUZU
01/01/1956 Şırnak
Nadir DENİZ
01/01/1935 Şırnak
Cihan MUNİS
75192/10
15/09/2010
Mehmet YAVUZ
01/01/1944 Osmaniye
Hasan YAVUZ
01/01/1948 Osmaniye
13231/11
15/12/2010
Seyit Ali ÇELİKDEMİR
20/01/1951 Tunceli
Hüseyin AYGÜN
17629/11
11/11/2010
Şevket ESMER
05/03/1937 Diyarbakır
Abdullah YILMAZ
14/11/1946 Diyarbakır
Ramazan BAYRAM
03/04/1945 Diyarbakır
Şuayib CAN
01/01/1956 Diyarbakır
Ali BAŞARI
03/05/1953 Diyarbakır
Celal AYGEN
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy