Communicated on 17 September 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 4201/09
Cemal ŞEYLAN against Turkey
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications listed in the appendix concern the designation of the applicants’ lands, which are located at Turkey’s border with Armenia, as “1st degree military zone” and the resulting restrictions on their use of the lands.
The cases brought by the applicants, whereby they had argued that their lands had been expropriated de facto by the military forces, were dismissed by the domestic court, who found that the area at issue was not surrounded by barbed wire and that the applicants had access to the lands upon approval from the administration. During the course of the proceedings the administration pointed out that 1st degree military zones at borders need not be expropriated pursuant to Section 7 § 2 of the Law on Military and Security Zones (Law no. 2565).
The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic court provide adequate reasoning in relation to the applicants’ alleged inability to access their lands, taking account of its statement that the lands at issue were not surrounded by barbed wire, despite the letter of the Directorate of Cadastral Works dated 6 June 2006 which noted otherwise?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as a result of the designation of their lands as 1st degree military zone and the resulting restrictions on their access to and use of their lands?
In particular, did those restrictions and the domestic authorities’ refusal to expropriate the lands or award compensation to the applicants impose an excessive individual burden on them (see, mutatis mutandis, Sarıca and Dilaver v. Turkey, no. 11765/05, 27 May 2010)? In that connection, what was the extent of the impugned restrictions?
The parties are requested to provide the Court with an expert report, preferably judicial, on the alleged damage caused to the applicants by the impugned interference. The report should point out all the objective criteria it relies on in reaching its conclusions.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date and place of birth
Represented by
4201/09
17/01/2009
Cemal ŞEYLAN
01/03/1944
IĞDIR
Onur GÜNDOĞDU
5818/09
11/01/2009
Tahir ÇATMA
07/01/1961
IĞDIR
Onur GÜNDOĞDU
5820/09
17/01/2009
Abdullah GÜL
01/01/1921
IĞDIR
Onur GÜNDOĞDU
5824/09
17/01/2009
Hamit ŞEYRAN
20/09/1934
IĞDIR
Onur GÜNDOĞDU
5826/09
17/01/2009
Abdulmecit ÇATMA
25/04/1953
IĞDIR
Onur GÜNDOĞDU
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy