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 29 April 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are represented by Mr M. S. Tanrıkulu, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 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 1976 the applicants brought proceedings, requesting the annulment of a cadastral survey which stated that certain land should be registered in the Treasury’s name as it was neither occupied nor owned by private...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 20236/06 Müge SARGIN 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 29 April 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are represented by Mr M. S. Tanrıkulu, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 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 1976 the applicants brought proceedings, requesting the annulment of a cadastral survey which stated that certain land should be registered in the Treasury’s name as it was neither occupied nor owned by private persons. On 27 May 2000 the Bodrum Cadastral Court dismissed the applicants’ case and held that the land should be registered in the Treasury’s name. On 15 July 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment. On 17 October 2005 the Court of Cassation rejected the request for rectification. On
2 SARGIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION 31 October 2005 the final decision was deposited with the registry 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 allege violation of Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law. They maintain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of property was violated by the excessive length of the proceedings. 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 failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as a new domestic remedy had been envisaged. In so doing, the Court in particular cons...