The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of: Sir Nicolas BRATZA, President, Mr J. CASADEVALL, Mr G. BONELLO, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr K. TRAJA, Mr S. PAVLOVSCHI, Mr J. ŠIKUTA, judges, and Mrs F. ARACI, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 November 1998, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Pınar Güngör, is a Turkish national who was born in 1937 and lives in Ankara. She was represented before the Court by Mr K. Berzeg, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 46745/99 by Pınar GÜNGÖR against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of: Sir Nicolas BRATZA, President, Mr J. CASADEVALL, Mr G. BONELLO, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr K. TRAJA, Mr S. PAVLOVSCHI, Mr J. ŠIKUTA, judges, and Mrs F. ARACI, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 November 1998, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Pınar Güngör, is a Turkish national who was born in 1937 and lives in Ankara. She was represented before the Court by Mr K. Berzeg, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.
2 GÜNGÖR v. TURKEY DECISION A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is the owner of 102.08 square metres of land, in a plot of 700 square metres (plot no. 15/A), in Kızılay Square, in the Çankaya district of Ankara. The plot in question is situated in front of the Soysal Business Centre, of which the applicant is a co-owner. On 22 March 1994 the applicant brought an action for compensation against the Ankara Municipality (Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi) before the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance. She submitted, inter alia, that the Ankara Municipality occupied plot no. 15/A illegally for the purposes of constructing a tube station in Kızılay Square. The applicant maintained that the Municipality neither conducted expropriation proceedings nor compensated her for the damage resulting from the de facto taking of her property. She requested to be paid the value of the plot in question. She also submitted an expert report dated 16 March 1994 in support of her claim. According to this report, the Municipality was in actual possession of plot no. 15/A. The Municipality denied the allegations and argued that they had been in actual possession of plot no. 15/A since 1967. They therefore argued that the applicant’s action for compensation had to be rejected as being time-barred. On 15 April 1994 the Ankara Municipality submitted a sketch plan to the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance according to which plot no. 15/A was situated next to two other plots of land belonging to the applicant and her co-owners and was left by the owners as an access area. On 16 September 1994 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance requested the Çankaya and Ankara Municipalities to submit informati...