The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub Popović, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 October 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are represented by Mr K. Hatipoğlu, a lawyer practising in Düzce. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1972 several persons brought proceedings against the applicants, requesting the annulment of a cadastral survey which found that certain plots of land be registered in the name of the applicants. Subsequently, an...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 41798/06 Emine ATASEVEN and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub Popović, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 October 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are represented by Mr K. Hatipoğlu, a lawyer practising in Düzce. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1972 several persons brought proceedings against the applicants, requesting the annulment of a cadastral survey which found that certain plots of land be registered in the name of the applicants. Subsequently, an annotation was made in the Land Registry in order to prevent the sale of this property. On 11 October 1978 a caution was registered in the Registry against the applicants. On 12 February 2005 the Düzce Cadastral Court dismissed the case and ordered that the impugned plots be registered in the applicants’ name, as determined by the cadastral survey. On 31 May 2005
2 ATASEVEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION the caution was removed following the applicants’ request. On 13 April 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. B. Relevant domestic law A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Müdür Turgut and Others ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the national court were not concluded within a reasonable time. The applicants maintain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their right to peaceful enjoyment of property was violated by the excessive length of the proceedings in that they could neither use nor sell the property due to the annotation and the caution in the Land Register. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...” The Court observes that a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey after the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). The Court recalls that in its decision in the case of Turgut and others v. Turkey (no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), it declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had faile...