Communicated on 22 November 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 5983/09
Abdullah PİŞKİN
against Turkey
lodged on 23 January 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the domestic authorities’ refusal to register a property, which had previously been allocated to the applicant within the boundaries of illegal housing prevention zone (gecekondu önleme bölgesi), although he had paid the required amount.
The case he had brought for the annulment of the administrative decision, by which his request for registration was rejected on account of a registration made in the name of third persons, was accepted by the Istanbul Administrative Court. However, in the meantime another case brought by the said third persons before the Istanbul Civil Court was also accepted. The applicant’s subsequent application to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) was rejected by that court which found that the conditions requiring it to resolve a matter had not been fulfilled.
The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, has he been deprived of his possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law?
Was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?
Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden in view of the payments made by him for the property at issue and the lack of any compensation awarded to him for the authorities’ refusal to register the property in his name (see, mutadis mutandis, Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, 6 December 2011)?
2. Does the failure of domestic authorities to enforce the judgment of the Istanbul Administrative Court dated 28 January 2005 (E: 2004/2340, and K: 2005/78) give rise to a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Dildar v. Turkey, no. 77361/01, 12 December 2006)?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the above-mentioned judgment of the Istanbul Administrative Court?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy