The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Corneliu Bîrsan, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Alvina Gyulumyan, Egbert Myjer, Luis López Guerra, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 September 2002, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants, Mrs Cemile Bozoğlu (Akarsu), Mrs Hepgül Korucu (Akarsu), Mr Hamit Akarsu, Mr Mahmut Akarsu, Mr Aziz Akarsu, Mr Veysel Akarsu, Mr Alem Akarsu and Mrs Leyla Demir (Akarsu), are Turkish nationals who were born in 1950, 1942, 1953, 1948, 1946, 1937, 1933 and 1934 respectively and live in Erzurum. They were represented 2 BOZOĞLU...
THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 787/03 by Cemile BOZOĞLU (AKARSU) and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Corneliu Bîrsan, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Alvina Gyulumyan, Egbert Myjer, Luis López Guerra, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 September 2002, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants, Mrs Cemile Bozoğlu (Akarsu), Mrs Hepgül Korucu (Akarsu), Mr Hamit Akarsu, Mr Mahmut Akarsu, Mr Aziz Akarsu, Mr Veysel Akarsu, Mr Alem Akarsu and Mrs Leyla Demir (Akarsu), are Turkish nationals who were born in 1950, 1942, 1953, 1948, 1946, 1937, 1933 and 1934 respectively and live in Erzurum. They were represented
2 BOZOĞLU (AKARSU) AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION before the Court by Mr A.F. Ataman and Mrs H. Ataman, lawyers practising in Erzurum. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. The applicants are the owners of a plot of land of 40,000 square metres (plot no. 227) in Nenehatun village, Erzurum. The plot in question is situated in the vicinity of military barracks. 4. On an unspecified date, the military forces enclosed 23,600 square metres of plot no. 227 with a wire fence. 5. On 18 May 1998 the applicants brought an action (case no. 1998/184) in the Third Chamber of the Erzurum Civil Court of First Instance against the Ministry of National Defence (“the Ministry”) and requested compensation for de facto expropriation of 23,600 square metres of their plot. They alleged that the Ministry had forbidden them access to their land, claiming that it was a military security zone. 6. On 11 June 1998 the Treasury and the Ministry brought a cross-action (case no. 1998/234) with the First Chamber of the Erzurum Civil Court of First Instance and requested to be registered as the owners of plot no. 227, claiming that the plot in question was located in a restricted military and security zone and that the military forces had control over it pursuant to Articles 7, 9 and 21 of Law no. 2565 (Law on the Restricted Military Zones and Security Zones). 7. On an unspecified date the Third Chamber of the Erzurum Civil Court of First Instance decided to await the outcome of the proceedings before the First Chamber. 8. On 28 October 1998 a judge from the First Chamber of the Erzurum Civil Court of First Instance, together with representatives of the parties and experts, conducted a survey of the applicants’ land. The local experts stated that the land had been owned by Musa Akarsu and that the applica...