Communicated on 13 December 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 10596/13
Gönül ŞENGÜL against Turkey
and 8 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the refusal of the domestic authorities to restitute to the applicants a plot of land donated to the administration with condition, despite the fact that disputed land had not been used for the designated purposes by the municipality.
The applications concern a plot of land situated in block no. 2956, parcel no. 1 in Eskişehir. Following a cadastral work on the land, the applicants ceded the above mentioned land to the municipality for public interest purposes (in particular with the clause of “municipal service area”).
In 2005 there had been an amendment in the zoning plan and the land was divided into two lots. The first part was allocated for the construction of a tram station. The second part was allocated for public service and registered in the name of Odunpazarı Municipality.
Subsequently, the municipality started the construction of a dormitory on the second part of the land. However after the construction was completed, the building was rented out to a private company as a hotel for ten years.
The applicants brought proceedings before the domestic courts to recover the possession of the land which had not been used for the designated purpose by the municipality. However their requests were rejected on the ground that the plot of land in question was used in accordance with the clause of public service.
Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, the applicants complained of the refusal to restitute the donated land although it is not used for the donation condition.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. In the light of the cases of Karaman v. Turkey (no. 6489/03, 15 January 2008) and Sağlık İnşaat Turizm Sanayi Taahhüt ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 55549/11, 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 their land had not been used for public interest purposes by the municipality? If yes, 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.
2. In this connection was there a public interest in renting out the building to a private company? Furthermore, in Turkish law, what kinds of services are covered by the notion of “municipal service area”?
The parties are invited to submit expert reports, preferably obtained under the control of a judge, on the value of the disputed land on the rental date, exposing in details the objective datas on which their conclusions are based.
The Government is invited to provide the Court with the all relevant documents and information concerning the disputed land, including a copy of the rent contract.
appendıx
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
10596/13
19/12/2012
Gönül ŞENGÜL
25/05/1948
Eskişehir
İrfan BORÇE
10602/13
19/12/2012
Selçuk OĞUZ
21/07/1954
Ankara
İrfan BORÇE
10603/13
18/12/2012
Namık AKÇARDAK
01/09/1949
Eskişehir
İrfan BORÇE
10604/13
18/12/2012
Emine Sevim ÇIKILIOĞLU
20/03/1932
Eskişehir
İrfan BORÇE
10605/13
18/12/2012
Hüseyin Yılmaz ŞENGÜL
18/09/1943
Eskişehir
İrfan BORÇE
10606/13
18/12/2012
Asiman ERGİNEL
04/01/1946
Eskişehir
İrfan BORÇE
10607/13
19/12/2012
Deniz GİDER
12/01/1966
Istanbul
İrfan BORÇE
10608/13
19/12/2012
Cahide DURU
01/11/1945
Istanbul
İrfan BORÇE
10609/13
19/12/2012
Ergun DURU
10/07/1967
Istanbul
İrfan BORÇE
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy