CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mars 2019

.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 }   Communicated on 11 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5814/09 Faik DEMİR against Turkey lodged on 14 January 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s claim for acquisition of a piece of land by way of adverse possession. The applicant’s first case was rejected on account of the fact that the requirements of undisputed and uninterrupted use of the land for 20 years for acquisition inscription had not been met. After having awaited the fulfilment of the twenty-year requirement, in 2004 the applicant brought a new civil case before the first instance court for the registration of the same land in his name. The court rejected this case on the grounds that the twenty-year requirement would restart from the date of its previous final decision. In their decisions, the national courts concluded that as the applicant’s first case had been rejected, the land at issue had become disputed. The previous time for use of the land therefore could not be regarded in the calculation of the following case. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did he have a legitimate expectation as regards his claim concerning the property that he had been using for an extended period of time? If so, has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Did such deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on him?