The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 March 2016 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 January 2005, Having regard to the partial decision of 27 January 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Cemil Kahraman, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Çanakkale. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Öztok, a lawyer practising in Çanakkale. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The applicant was the owner of two plots of land (plot nos. 343 and 357) in Çanakkale. 1. Proceedings concerning plot no. 357 3. On 19 September 1989 the applicant bought the plot in question and...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 7128/05 Cemil KAHRAMAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 March 2016 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 January 2005, Having regard to the partial decision of 27 January 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Cemil Kahraman, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Çanakkale. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Öztok, a lawyer practising in Çanakkale. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The applicant was the owner of two plots of land (plot nos. 343 and 357) in Çanakkale. 1. Proceedings concerning plot no. 357 3. On 19 September 1989 the applicant bought the plot in question and the title deed of the land was registered in his name. In 1990, following a cadastral surveying, the applicant’s land was classified as part of a public forest area.
2 KAHRAMAN v. TURKEY DECISION 4. On 21 May 1992 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Çanakkale Cadastral Court to have the results of the cadastral survey annulled. 5. During the proceedings, the court ordered an expert report and based on this report, it concluded that the land in question was part of the public forest area and accordingly on 22 December 1992 the claim was dismissed. 6. On 14 April and 29 September 1994 respectively, the applicant’s appeal and rectification requests were rejected by the Court of Cassation. 7. On 30 October 2002 the applicant requested the re-opening of the proceedings. He submitted that in another trial concerning another plot of land in Çanakkale, maps from 1935 and 1945 had been submitted to the Çanakkale Civil Court of First Instance. He argued that these maps should be regarded as new evidence and be taken into account for his case. 8. On 10 March 2004 the Çanakkale Cadastral Court rejected the applicant’s case and decided that there was no need for the re-opening of the proceedings. In its decision, the court held that the applicant’s land was classified as forest area in 1992 and that maps from 1935 and 1945 could not be considered as new evidence that should be taken into account. On 9 November 2004 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal. 2. Proceedings concerning plot no. 343 9. In 1990, the forest administration conducted a cadastral survey and plot no. 343 was designated as part of the public forest area. 10. On 25 July 1995 the applicant bought the plot in question as there was no annotation in the land registry log book indicating that the land was part of the public forest area. Accordingly, the title deed of the land was registered in the applicant’s name. 11. On 14 April 2000, after learning of the cadastral survey, ...