The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and, Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the applications, the dates of introduction and numbers of which are listed in the appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the 24 applicants is set out in the appendix. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants and appearing from the case files, may be summarised as follows. The applicants claimed to have acquired ownership of the lands in question by prescription or to have been granted property rights through unregistered transfers or assignments by third parties who themselves had acted as rightful owners based on acquisitive prescription. The applicants, transferors or assignors did not have any...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 33569/08 Adil ÖZADAM against Turkey and 12 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and, Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the applications, the dates of introduction and numbers of which are listed in the appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the 24 applicants is set out in the appendix. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants and appearing from the case files, may be summarised as follows. The applicants claimed to have acquired ownership of the lands in question by prescription or to have been granted property rights through unregistered transfers or assignments by third parties who themselves had acted as rightful owners based on acquisitive prescription. The applicants, transferors or assignors did not have any title or caution registered at the land registry. The ledgers (and not title deeds) that the applicants mentioned in their submissions to the Court in the applications nos. 21734/10 and 3475/10 had not been relied on before the domestic authorities.
2 ÖZADAM v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION The applicants initiated civil proceedings against the cadastral surveys and planning as well as the registration of the lands in the registry in the name of the Treasury as forest. In application no. 33569/08 the applicant’s tractor was confiscated and criminal proceedings were issued against him on suspicion of the offence of clearing of a forested area for agricultural use. The applicants’ cases were rejected on the grounds that ownership of forests could not be transferred or acquired by way of prescription. In some of these cases, whether the other legal conditions (namely, an uninterrupted and unopposed possession or use in the role of owner for the period specified by law), were fulfilled was also disputed. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Articles 6 of the Convention and/or 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had been legally entitled to the lands in question; that the lands concerned had not been within forest areas and that accordingly they should have been registered in their names. The applicants added that they had not received a fair trial as they had been deprived of their possessions. In application nos. 17967/10 and 32080/10, the applicants complained that they had not been able to use their own property for years due to the unjustified interference by the administration and the ensuing proceedings. In application no. 23698/10 the applicant called into question the fact that he had not been personally notified of the outcome of cadastral survey and planning operations and that instead, a public announcement had been made pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations. He also relied on Article 13. THE LAW The Co...