Communicated on 8 July 2019
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 67568/17
Şahin TOSUN
against Turkey
lodged on 21 August 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal to restitute a plot of land to the applicant, despite the failure of the authorities to comply with the conditions of the donation by which the property was initially transferred to them by the applicant.
The donation was made on condition that the rest of the applicant’s land would have been included in an urban plan by the Küçükçekmece Municipality within 2 months. The urban plan prepared by the Municipality in accordance with the conditions of the donation was annulled by the domestic courts upon the request of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.
The civil proceedings brought by the applicant for the annulment of the donation on account of the Municipality’s failure to meet the conditions of the Protocol was dismissed by the Court of Cassation, on the grounds that the applicant had sold the land before the annulment of the urban plan.
The applicant complains of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention on the ground that the reasons given by the Court of Cassation were not consistent with the facts of the case as he had sold the land not before but after the annulation of the plan.
The applicant further alleges that the refusal to restitute his plot of land amounted to a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a in interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the non-restitution of the applicant’s plot of land? Was this interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law? In the light of the Court’s findings in the case of Karaman v. Turkey (no. 6489/03, 15 January 2008), did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?
2. Were the reasons set out in the Court of Cassation’s judgment consistent with the facts? If not, did it amount to a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy