CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 23 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 3984/21 BALAT RUM BALINO KILISESI VAKFI against Türkiye and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 5 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are minority religious community foundations established during the Ottoman era. After the proclamation of the Republic, the foundations’ status was regulated by Law no. 2762 of 13 June 1935, by virtue of which they were given legal personality. In 1936, in accordance with section   44 of the said Law, the applicants filed declarations indicating their aims and their immovable property. The applications concern the applicants’ claims for the return of certain property or the payment of compensation corresponding to its value, in accordance with provisional section 11 of Law no. 5737. They claimed that this property had been registered in their 1936 declarations. The applicants’ requests for the application of provisional section   11 of Law   no.   5737 were rejected by the administrative courts on the grounds that section 11 was not applicable in their cases. The administrative courts stated that the applicants should lodge a case with the civil courts instead. Following the decisions of the administrative courts, the applicants lodged an individual application with the Turkish Constitutional Court. In applications nos.   3986/21 and 5567/21, that court examined the applicants’ complaints on the basis of the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for property. It declared the first complaint inadmissible on the ground that it was manifestly ill-founded. As for the complaint relating to the right to property, it declared it inadmissible for non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies, referring to its judgment in Boyacıköy Panayia Evangelistra Kilisesi ve Mektebi Vakfı (no. 2015/17576 of 1 February 2017). Application no. 3984/21 was examined by the Constitutional Court on the basis of the right to property and declared inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies. In this regard, the Constitutional Court referred to its judgment in Bayram Gök (no. 2012/946 of 26 February 2013), which concerned a de facto expropriation. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their right of access to court had been violated by the Turkish Constitutional Court’s rejection of their cases for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, even though they had applied to the administrative courts beforehand. The applicants further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the administration’s refusal to register the properties concerned in their names violated their right to property. They maintained that the properties concerned had been declared in their 1936 declarations. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Can the judgments referred to by the Constitutional Court in dismissing the applicants’ individual applications be considered applicable to the present cases? The Government are requested to provide examples of judicial decisions capable of demonstrating that an appeal to the civil courts was capable of remedying the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention.   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Constitutional Court’s rejection of their applications for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies?   3.     Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the administration’s refusal to register the properties concerned in the applicants’ names? (a)     Did the applicants have a possession within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1? In the particular circumstances of the cases, for the purposes of provisional section 11 of Law no. 5737 and the applicants’ cases before the administrative courts, did the applicants declare the properties concerned in their 1936 declarations ( compare Midyat Mor Gabriel Monastery Foundation v. Türkiye , no. 13176/13, § 41, 3   October 2023)? (bà     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? (c)     If so, have the applicants been deprived of their 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 a deprivation impose an excessive burden on the applicants? (d)     Were the applicants given the opportunity to enjoy the procedural safeguards required under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, in particular given the administrative courts’ treatment of their cases ( Midyat Mor Gabriel Monastery Foundation , cited above, §   56)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Registration Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 3984/21 Balat Rum Balino Kilisesi Vakfı v. Türkiye 28/12/2020 BALAT RUM BALİNO KİLİSESİ VAKFI 1936 İstanbul Turkish Paris ASANAKIS 2. 3986/21 Balat Rum Balino Kilisesi Vakfı v. Türkiye 29/12/2020 BALAT RUM BALİNO KİLİSESİ VAKFI 1936 İstanbul Turkish Paris ASANAKIS 3. 5567/21 Belgratkapı Panayia Rum Kilisesi Vakfı v. Türkiye 19/01/2021 BELGRATKAPI PANAYİA RUM KİLİSESİ VAKFI 1936 İstanbul Turkish Paris ASANAKIS