003-6399543-8399616

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 170 (2019)   07.05.2019   Violation of right to property for lack of compensation:   appeal to a compensation board now provides a remedy   The case concerned civil proceedings dealing with claims in respect of the ownership of land   purchased by the applicants and classified as a “natural site”. The domestic courts decided to   register the land in the name of the Treasury on the basis of a new law which came into force during   the proceedings. The applicants did not receive any compensation.   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Kaynar and Others v. Turkey (applications   nos. 21104/06, 51103/06 and 18809/07) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,   that there had been:   a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on   Human Rights.   The Court found in particular that the change in legislation had deprived the applicants of the   possibility of obtaining the registration of their land, even though they could legitimately have   expected to meet all the requirements for recognition as owners. It also found that the applicants,   who had not received any compensation for their loss of property, had thus had to bear an   individual and excessive burden.   The Court also found that domestic law now allowed reparation for such a breach. An appeal to the   compensation board, whose remit had been extended in 2019 by presidential ordinance no. 809,   would now enable the applicants to obtain compensation. Taking the view that this appeal would   represent an appropriate means of remedying the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the   Convention, the Court decided to strike out the part of the application relating to Article 41 of the   Convention (just satisfaction).   It also found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time)   The Court found that the length of the proceedings (about 10 years), in the context of applications   lodged by two of the applicants, did not satisfy the requirement of a reasonable time. It thus   awarded those applicants just satisfaction for their non-pecuniary damage.   Principal facts   The applicants, Naci Kaynar, Ayşe Boztepe and Cemile Bürge Kuşman, are Turkish nationals who   were born in 1953, 1938 and 1967 respectively, and live in Çanakkale (Turkey).   In 1993 and 1995 the applicants purchased land on the island of Gökçeada. The land was classified as   a “natural site” whose ownership was unregistered.   In 1996 the land was registered in the name of the Treasury, in connection with a cadastral review.   That same year, the applicants applied to the Gökçeada land tribunal seeking the registration of the   land in their names, in accordance with the rules on adverse possession.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   In 1999 the tribunal granted their request, taking the view that the conditions for adverse possession   were satisfied. That judgment was overturned by the Court of Cassation, which found that the   judges of the land tribunal had not duly enquired as to whether the land was used for grazing and   could not therefore be acquired by adverse possession.   In 2004, while the proceedings before the land tribunal were pending, the legislation on the   protection of cultural and natural heritage was amended. Land classified as a “natural site” could no   longer be acquired by adverse possession. As a result, the applicants’ claim was dismissed and the   land was registered in the name of the Treasury.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) the three applicants complained that   they had sustained a breach of their right to the enjoyment of their property on account of   legislative interference. They argued in particular that without that legislative amendment the   national courts would have secured the registration of the land in their own names.   Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), two of the applicants   complained about the length of the proceedings and alleged that the court decisions contained   insufficient reasoning.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 April 2006 and on   December 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Robert Spano (Iceland), President,   Paul Lemmens (Belgium),   Işıl Karakaş (Turkey),   Julia Laffranque (Estonia),   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro),   Arnfinn Bårdsen (Norway),   Darian Pavli (Albania),   and also Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   The legislative amendment of 2004 had deprived the applicants of the possibility of obtaining the   registration of their land, whereas they could have legitimately believed that they had satisfied all   the requirements to enable them to be recognised as owners of the real estate that they or their   vendors had possessed for a lengthy period of time.   The 2004 law had thus entailed an interference with the ownership rights that could have been   asserted by them under the law in force hitherto and, consequently, with their right to the peaceful   enjoyment of their possessions. The interference had satisfied the condition of lawfulness for the   purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court was prepared to admit that the legislative amendment sought to protect the   environment, which was a legitimate aim in the general interest. However, in 2007, after less than   three years, the law had again been amended such as to exclude all the land classified as natural   sites – the classification of the land at issue – from its scope. Henceforth, as already at the time   when the applications were lodged, land within a natural site could be acquired by adverse   possession.   The Court further found that the applicants had not received any compensation and that the   Government had not relied on any exceptional circumstance to justify the total absence of any   award. Thus the applicants had been made to bear an individual and excessive burden, entailing a   breach of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time)   The Court found that the length of the proceedings (about 10 years) did not satisfy the requirement   of a reasonable time. It thus found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the   applications lodged by Ms Boztepe and Ms Kuşman.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   As regards the interference with the right to the enjoyment of property, the Court noted that   presidential ordinance no. 809, which entered into force on 8 March 2019, had extended the remit   of the compensation board, set up in January 2013. That ordinance had laid down the principles and   procedure to be followed relating to compensation in cases where the Court had found a violation of   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention but had not ruled on claims for just satisfaction under   Article 41 of the Convention (which was the case here) or had decided to reserve the question.   Referring to the subsidiary nature of the human rights protection mechanism under the Convention,   the Court found that an appeal to the compensation board within one month from the notification   of its final judgment was capable of enabling compensation to be obtained from the authorities and   was therefore an appropriate means of seeking redress for an established breach of Article 1 of   Protocol No. 1. In this context the Court reiterated that the domestic authorities were undoubtedly   best placed to assess any damage sustained and had the appropriate legal and technical means to   put an end to a violation of the Convention and allow for reparation to be made, especially where it   was a matter of determining the value of real estate in a Contracting State at a given date.   The Court thus found that domestic law now allowed for reparation of the breach established in the   present case. It took the view that it did not need to rule on the monetary claims submitted by the   applicants and decided to strike out the part of the application under Article 41 of the Convention   concerning the alleged pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.   As to the excessive length of the proceedings, the Court held that Turkey had to pay Ms Boztepe   and Ms Kuşman EUR 5,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,270 jointly for costs and   expenses.   The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHRpress.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   Somi Nikol (tel: + 33 3 90 21 64 25)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4