The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 February 2017 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 July 2004, 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 applicant, Mr Mestan Atik, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1937 and lives in İzmir. He was represented before the Court by Mr N. Değirmenci, a lawyer practising in İzmir. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. In 1969 the applicant bought a plot of...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 31572/04 Mestan ATİK against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 February 2017 as a Committee composed of: Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 July 2004, 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 applicant, Mr Mestan Atik, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1937 and lives in İzmir. He was represented before the Court by Mr N. Değirmenci, a lawyer practising in İzmir. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. In 1969 the applicant bought a plot of land in İzmir, on which he built a house in the same year and started using it as his residence. 5. 20 March 1985 the applicant’s plot of land was registered in the land registry. The house was also indicated in the title deed. 6. On 30 October 1986 the applicant requested the Balçova Municipality to issue a building permit for his house according to Law no. 2981.
2 ATIK v. TURKEY DECISION 7. In 1995, a new zoning plan was put into force in the region which included the applicant’s land. According to the new plan, the applicant’s land was described as public utility area and thus designated for use by the municipality. Subsequently the owners, including the applicant, were allotted another plot of land in a different place in lieu of their own land. 8. On 1 November 1996 the applicant’s house was sealed off for not having a building permit. On 20 February 1997 the Balçova municipal executive committee (belediye encümeni) ordered the demolition of the applicant’s house on the same ground. 9. On 18 March 1997 the applicant’s house was demolished. 10. On 28 March 1997 the applicant applied to the administrative authorities for compensation for the demolition of his house. He received no reply. 11. On 16 June 1997 the applicant lodged a case before the İzmir Administrative Court and asked for compensation for the loss he had incurred as a result of the demolition. 12. On 13 May 1999 the İzmir Administrative Court accepted the applicant’s claim by stating that the existence of the applicant’s house was legally determined by the title deed records and that therefore the administration had to pay compensation as it had been at fault. The applicant was accordingly awarded compensation. 13. On 8 November 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the İzmir Administrative Court, holding that the description of the applicant’s land as well as the zoning plan at the time of the application for a building permit should be further investigated. 14. ...