CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 janvier 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 93 January 2007 Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfı v. Turkey - 34478/97 Judgment 9.1.2007 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Prescribed by law Foreseeability Court order finally annulling, more than thirty years after their lawful acquisition, a title to properties belonging to a foundation set up by a religious minority: violation Facts : The applicant is a foundation under Turkish law which was set up at the time of the Ottoman Empire. Its constitution adheres to the provisions of the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 affording protection to old foundations providing public services for religious minorities. In 1936 the applicant foundation filed a declaration of its aims and immovable property, in accordance with a law of 1935 by virtue of which it had obtained legal personality. In 1952 the applicant foundation received a gift of part of a building in Istanbul and purchased another part in 1958. In 1992 the Treasury applied for the annulment of the applicant foundation's title deeds in respect of that property and the deletion of its name from the land register. In 1996 the District Court granted the application. Basing its decision on an expert report which referred to a Court of Cassation precedent from 1974, the court held that foundations belonging to religious minorities as defined by the Treaty of Lausanne and whose constitutive documents did not indicate a capacity to acquire immovable property were precluded from purchasing or accepting a gift of such property. Accordingly, their immovable property was restricted to that set out in their constitutive documents and finalised in the declaration of property made in 1936. The Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. Law : The applicant foundation had been able to enjoy its property as rightful owner, from the dates of acquisition (1952 and 1958) until the date of the judgment of the Court of Cassation (1996), and had paid the various property taxes in respect of it. The final removal by the Turkish courts of the applicant foundation's property title from the land registers, 38 and 44 years after the acquisition of the properties in question, had amounted to a deprivation of its possessions. The Turkish court had based its decision on a report stating that, under the 1974 case-law, religious minority foundations whose constitutive documents did not indicate that they had capacity to acquire immovable property were precluded from acquiring such property by any means. However, no statutory provision prohibited the foundations concerned from acquiring assets other than those which were included in the 1936 declaration. The applicant foundation's acquisitions had been validated by a certificate from the provincial governor's office and entered in the land register. The applicant foundation had thus been certain of having acquired the properties lawfully, at the time of the acquisitions in 1952 and 1958, and until the 1974 case-law had had “legal certainty” that it was entitled to acquire immovable property. Consequently, the annulment of the applicant foundation's title to property pursuant to case-law adopted 16 years and 22 years after its acquisition, could not have been foreseen. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The property was to be re-registered in the applicant foundation's name, failing which EUR 890,000 was to be paid in respect of pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes