003-6615155-8775494

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 027 (2020)   21.01.2020   Judgments of 21 January 2020   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing nine judgments1:   one Chamber judgment is summarised below;   a separate press release has been issued for one other Chamber judgment in the case of Strazimiri v.   Albania (application no. 34602/16);   seven Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment below is available only in English.   Şamat v. Turkey (application no. 29115/07)   The applicants, Niyazi Şamat, now deceased, and Nuri Şamat, are Turkish nationals who were born in   and 1946, respectively, and live(d) in Istanbul.   The case concerned a dispute over forest boundaries.   Between 1982 and 1994 the applicants bought shares in a plot of land in Kemerburgaz, Istanbul.   The land had previously been the subject of proceedings against the former owner by the forest   administration and the Treasury seeking to have his title deed annulled because the land was   situated inside the Belgrade Forest, which had been declared a conservation area. The Land Registry   Court dismissed the case, finding that the plot fell outside the forest’s boundaries. The decision   became final in 1979.   However, in 2003 the forest administration brought proceedings against the applicants to annul   their title deed and to have the land registered in the name of the Treasury, based on a cadastral   evaluation drawn up in 1985 finding that the land was inside the forest’s boundaries.   The courts ultimately, in 2007, ruled in favour of the forest administration because the applicants   had missed the 10-year time-limit to contest the conclusions of the 1985 cadastral evaluation. They   rejected the applicants’ argument that the status of the land had been conclusively determined in   the decision of 1979 and should have the effect of res judicata.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the   applicants alleged in particular that the proceedings brought against them had been in breach of the   principle of legal certainty.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in respect of the principle of legal certainty in the proceedings before the   Eyüp Civil Court   Just satisfaction: 6,000 euros (EUR) to the applicants jointly for non-pecuniary damage   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   judgment’s 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. Under Article 28 of the   Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   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   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   @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   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.   2