CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 25 January 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5496/10 Hasan ALTUNTAŞ against Turkey lodged on 4 January 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns registration of a plot of land in the land register in the name of the Treasury as part of the public forest estate. In 2007, upon a cadastral survey, the disputed plot of land was registered in the applicant’s name in accordance with the law on adverse possession. However, the forest administration objected to the outcome of the survey before the Sürmene Cadastral Court and sought the registration of the land as belonging to the Treasury alleging that it was part of the public forest estate. During these proceedings the applicant claimed that he was owner of the land according to his predecessor’s title deed which had been issued by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire. Following an order by the cadastral court, an expert report was submitted to the case file in which it was indicated that the north and the south boundaries of the land, as indicated in the title deed, could not have been determined due to lack of information. On 23 March 2009 the Sürmene Cadastral Court found in favour of the forest administration. The decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation. In their decisions, neither the cadastral court nor the Court of Cassation gave an answer to the applicant’s argument concerning the existence of a title deed to the disputed land. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not examine his submissions about the existence of a title deed to the land in question. He further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that, as a result of the classification of his land as part of the public forest area, he was deprived of his property without receiving any compensation.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Are title deeds which were issued by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire valid documents granting right to property to their holders under Turkish law? In the affirmative, (a)     Are boundaries of the land as described in the title deed submitted to the Sürmene Cadastral Court by the applicant certain or at least determinable? (b)     Following the Sürmene Cadastral Court’s decision of 23 March 2009, has it been possible for the applicant to dispose of any immovable property depending on the said title deed?   2.     Did the title deed of the applicant’s predecessor which had been issued by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire constitute a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions? In the affirmative, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? In particular did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant given the apparent absence of compensation? Furthermore was the applicant afforded judicial procedures that offer the necessary procedural guarantees in the adjudication of his claim (see Gereksar and Others v. Turkey , nos. 34764/05 and 3 others, § 51, 1   February 2011)?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as the domestic courts delivered decisions without responding to his argument about the existence of a title deed to the disputed plot of land?