The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of Mrs E. Palm, President, Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, Mr Gaukur Jörundsson, Mr R. Türmen, Mr B. Zupančič, Mr T. Panţîru, Mr R. Maruste, judges, and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 December 1996 and registered on 24 May 1997, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: 36209/97 - 2 - THE FACTS The applicant is a Turkish national, born in 1926 and living in Antalya (Turkey) and Belvue (Switzerland). He is...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 36209/97 by Hüseyin Cahit ÜNVER against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of Mrs E. Palm, President, Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, Mr Gaukur Jörundsson, Mr R. Türmen, Mr B. Zupančič, Mr T. Panţîru, Mr R. Maruste, judges, and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 December 1996 and registered on 24 May 1997, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows:
36209/97 - 2 - THE FACTS The applicant is a Turkish national, born in 1926 and living in Antalya (Turkey) and Belvue (Switzerland). He is represented before the Court by Mr Sinan Aklar, a lawyer practising in Antalya(Turkey). A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant owns a three-story house on a hill overlooking the south coast of Antalya. At the time when he had his house built, the south coast was officially designated a conservation area (doğal sit alanı). According to the local master building and settlement plan (imar planı), no building was authorised in this area. In 1993 the Antalya Municipal Board revised the master plan in order to allow homes to be built. Subsequently, property developers were given building permits (inşaat ruhsatı) and undertook major building works in the area. As a result, the natural panorama of the south coast began to change rapidly. In 1993 the applicant twice complained to the Antalya City Municipality requesting that development be halted with immediate effect. In reply, the Antalya City Municipality informed the applicant that the master plan had been revised on 4 March and 2 July 1993 and that several developers had been granted construction permits pursuant to the revision. The applicant challenged the award of the building permits before the Antalya Administrative Court (İdare Mahkemesi). He contended that the revision of the master plan did not comply with the requirements prescribed by Law no. 3194 and that the presence of the buildings would deprive him of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of the panoramic view from his house. He further contended that the preservation of the natural beauty of the site was in “the public interest” and the planned high buildings did not meet safety requirements for geographical reasons. He requested the annulment of the building permits awarded to the developers. He also requested the court to order the administ...