Published on 21 October 2024
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 18314/20
Muhammet Can SOLMAZ and Others
against Türkiye
lodged on 16 April 2020
communicated on 30 September 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the classification following a cadastral survey of the land that the applicants claimed to be in their possession as forest belonging to the State and the alleged lack of a reasonable opportunity for the applicants to challenge that measure.
Following the completion of the cadastral survey, which took place between 2007 and 2008, the land, which the applicants claim to be in their possession since 1937, was classified as a forest. In 2012, the applicants brought a civil action and requested the quashing of the outcome of the cadastral survey. The first instance court dismissed the case on the ground that the applicants failed to object to the outcome of the cadastral survey within the negative prescription time-limit, although it accepted that the land met the requirements to be classified as 2B land, which could have enabled the applicants to acquire it on favourable terms because of the possession they claimed to exercise over it. The Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ appeal.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain that the cadastral survey was not carried out properly as the land was not classified as 2B land and their possession was not mentioned. They further complain that they had been denied the opportunity to file an objection in due time as the outcome of the cadastral survey had not been published.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Taking into account that the applicants claim to have used the land since 1937, did the applicants have a “legitimate expectation” with regard to the right to acquire the land under favourable tariff conditions and thus a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ipseftel v. Turkey, no. 18638/05, §§ 48‑59, 26 May 2015)?
2. If so, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions?
In particular, have the applicants been afforded a reasonable opportunity to challenge effectively the measures depriving them of their possessions and to obtain an adequate redress (see Blumberga v. Latvia, no. 70930/01, § 67, 14 October 2008, and Elif Kızıl v. Turkey, no. 4601/06, §§ 89 et 98-102, 24 March 2020)? Was the application of the time-limit foreseeable? Was the outcome of the cadastral survey notified or published?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the outcome of the cadastral survey duly published or notified? Was the domestic courts’ approach to the procedural rules for the prescription time-limit foreseeable (see, mutatis mutandis, Kurşun v. Turkey, no. 22677/10, §§ 103-104, 30 October 2018)?
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Muhammet Can SOLMAZ
1999
Turkish
Samsun
2.
Samet AKIN
1999
Turkish
Samsun
3.
Serhat AKIN
1992
Turkish
Samsun
4.
Rengi Sefa GÖKŞAN
1975
Turkish
Isparta
5.
Seda KARA
1988
Turkish
Samsun
6.
Dursun Ali SOLMAZ
1970
Turkish
Samsun
7.
Mustafa SOLMAZ
1995
Turkish
Samsun
8.
Neriman SOLMAZ
1942
Turkish
Samsun
9.
Tuğce SOLMAZ
1994
Turkish
Samsun
10.
Uğur SOLMAZ
1979
Turkish
Samsun
11.
Pamuk UÇAR
1975
Turkish
Samsun