The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 June 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Julia Laffranque, President, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Paul Lemmens, Valeriu Griţco, Ksenija Turković, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 March 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants, Mr Mehmet Yılmaz Savaşçın, Ms Ayşe Şayan Ataklı, Ms Yılma Savaşçın and Ms Solmaz Gülper Refiğ, are four Turkish nationals. They were born in 1941, 1948, 1938 and 1943 respectively. They were represented before the Court by Ms Fatma Belgin Adalı, a lawyer practising in Izmir. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 2 SAVAŞÇIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION 3. In 1976 the applicants...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 15661/07 Mehmet Yılmaz SAVAŞÇIN and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 June 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Julia Laffranque, President, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Paul Lemmens, Valeriu Griţco, Ksenija Turković, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 March 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants, Mr Mehmet Yılmaz Savaşçın, Ms Ayşe Şayan Ataklı, Ms Yılma Savaşçın and Ms Solmaz Gülper Refiğ, are four Turkish nationals. They were born in 1941, 1948, 1938 and 1943 respectively. They were represented before the Court by Ms Fatma Belgin Adalı, a lawyer practising in Izmir. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
2 SAVAŞÇIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION 3. In 1976 the applicants purchased a plot of land measuring 7,860 sq. m in Foça, in the Yenifoça Salhan District of Izmir, which had been registered in the land register as parcel no. 2066. 4. On 30 November 1999, following a claim submitted by the forest administration, the Foça Civil Court of First Instance ordered that the applicants’ title deed be annulled and the land entered in the land register as belonging to the Treasury, holding that the land was part of the public forest. An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the applicants were subsequently rejected by the Court of Cassation and the decision became final on 4 February 2002. 5. On 14 June 2002 the applicants brought a case before the Foça Civil Court of First Instance. They sought compensation for pecuniary damage from the Treasury under Article 917 of the old Civil Code, which prescribed that the State was responsible for any damage resulting from the keeping of the land registry records. 6. On 21 December 2004 the Foça Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ compensation claim. The Court of Cassation rejected an appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the applicants, and the decision became final on 31 October 2006. B. Relevant domestic law and practice 1. Designation of land as public forest 7. Under Article 169 of the Turkish Constitution of 1982, ownership of public forests may not be transferred to others; public forests will be managed and exploited by the State in accordance with the law. Ownership of such forests cannot be acquired through adverse possession, nor may forests be subject to any easement, unless it is considered to be in the public interest. 8. Under section 7 of Law no. 6831 of 31 August 1956, the cadastral commissions decide whether an area will be categorized as a public forest or a private forest. The same law governs the way in which the cadastral commissions operate (sections 7 to 12). 9. A full description of the relevant domestic law and ...