Published on 21 July 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 23343/24
YEDIKULE SURP PIRGİÇ ERMENİ HASTANESİ VAKFI
against Türkiye
lodged on 26 July 2024
communicated on 3 July 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant, Yedikule Surp Pırgiç Ermeni Hastanesi Vakfı, is a religious foundation established during the Ottoman era and incorporated under Turkish law.
Before the proclamation of the Turkish Republic, the Legislative Decree of 1 March 1913 on the Ownership of Immovable Properties by Legal Persons (Eşhas-ı Hükmiyenin Emval-i Gayrimenkuleye Tasarruflarına Mahsus Kanun-ı Muvakkat) entitled religious communities to register real properties they possessed in their own names in the Ottoman Land Registry by making a submission (Eşhas-ı Hükmiye Cetveli). After the Republic’s proclamation, Law no. 2762 required legal entities of religious communities to disclose immovable properties in their possession to the Directorate of Foundations by 13 March 1936 through a declaration. On 27 August 2011 provisional section 11/b of Law no. 5737 on Foundations enabled religious foundations to register immovable properties, of which title deeds were currently in the names of certain public entities, in their own names, provided these properties had been included in their declaration of 1936.
The application concerns the applicant foundation’s complaint that, despite fulfilling the above-mentioned submission and declaration obligations, a plot of land in Üsküdar was not registered in its name, allegedly in contradiction with provisional section 11/b of Law no. 5737.
The administration dismissed the applicant foundation’s registration request of 24 August 2012 on the ground that the current registry records pertaining to the plot did not match the pre-cadastral address declared by the applicant foundation in 1936. The applicant foundation brought an action for annulment to challenge the administration’s decision.
On 28 September 2017 the Istanbul Third Administrative Court dismissed the case relying on an expert report endorsing the administration’s initial reasoning. However, on 27 September 2018, the Regional Court of Appeal overturned this judgment and annulled the administration’s rejection, concluding that the address specified in the declaration of 1936 corresponded to a smaller portion of the plot, which had to be registered in the applicant foundation’s name, following the administration’s determination of the extent of that portion.
On 21 October 2019 the administration rejected the applicant foundation’s renewed registration request on the ground that the information contained in the declaration of 1936 pertained to one of the eight immovable properties comprising the plot and that the address submitted was insufficient to make the determination prescribed by the Regional Court of Appeal. Subsequently, the applicant foundation initiated further legal proceedings. On 22 October 2021 the Istanbul Seventh Administrative Court dismissed the case, concluding that the information provided by the applicant foundation in the 1936 declaration was insufficient to link it to the relevant plot as the declaration lacked details such as the plot’s dimensions or orientation. On 14 June 2022 the Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. On 14 July 2022 the applicant foundation lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, which examined the matter through a panel of two judges and, on 29 March 2024, declared the application inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.
The applicant foundation complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the administration’s refusal to register the plot in its name was arbitrary and violated its right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Within this context, the applicant foundation further argues that the principle of legal certainty was breached and that the domestic courts delivered arbitrary judgments, thereby violating Article 6 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of the applicant foundation’s right to protection of property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the administration’s refusal to register the property concerned in the applicant foundation’s name?
In this connection,
(a) Prior to its request of 24 August 2012, did the applicant foundation undertake any legal actions before the domestic courts to assert its entitlement to the plot in question?
(b) Was the applicant foundation given the opportunity to enjoy the procedural safeguards required under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in particular given the administrative courts’ treatment of its case (Midyat Mor Gabriel Monastery Foundation v. Türkiye, no. 13176/13, § 56, 3 October 2023)?
(c) In dismissing the applicant foundation’s claim, did the Istanbul Seventh Administrative Court engage with and duly consider the reasoning by the Regional Court of Appeal in its judgment of 27 September 2018?
2. Did the applicant foundation have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the decision of the Istanbul Seventh Administrative Court of 22 October 2021 infringe the principle of legal certainty, considering the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal of 27 September 2018 (see for the relevant principles Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 238, 1 December 2020)?
The parties are invited to provide all evidentiary materials at their disposal, including expert opinions, official documentation, and witness statements, containing factual information regarding historical associations and use of the property in dispute.