4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Hatay. 5.  On 14 May 1980 the applicant bought a plot of land in Hatay from a third party and registered it in his name in the title deed registry. According to the registry’s record, the land was first owned by the Samandağ Municipality in 1965. In 1968 it was sold to third persons by the Municipality, and thereafter it was purchased from a third party by the applicant. 6.  In 1976 the Ministry of Construction and Settlement conducted land consolidation proceedings and defined the coastline in the area where the land was located. 7.  After he bought the land, the applicant constructed a building on it in order to use it as a tourist facility, and in 1995 he opened up and managed a cafeteria, after having obtained the necessary permission from the Samandağ Municipality. 8.  On 26 June 1995, the Samandağ Municipality, acting on behalf of the Treasury and relying on Law no. 3621 (the Coastal Law, 4 April 1990), requested the Samandağ Civil Court of First Instance to determine whether the applicant’s plot of land was located within the coastline area. 9.  On 29 June 1995 a group of experts, composed of a geomorphologist, a cartography engineer and an agricultural engineer, appointed by the court, inspected the land and concluded that it was located within the coastline area. 10.  On 5 July 1995 the Samandağ Municipality filed an action before the Samandağ Civil Court of First Instance, on behalf of the Treasury, requesting the annulment of the applicant’s ownership record in the title deed registry. Furthermore, it requested the court to issue an interim injunction in order to prevent any transfer of that title until the end of the case. 11.  On 9 September 1996 the applicant filed a petition with the court objecting to the expert report of 29 June 1995. He argued that the expert report, which failed to take into consideration the buildings on the land, could not be taken as a basis for the annulment of the record in the title deed registry. Moreover, he maintained that the Municipality had encouraged the construction of buildings in the surrounding area, by implementing a development plan. 12.  The court decided to obtain the opinion of another group of experts. On 14 September 1998, following a second inspection, the experts confirmed the first report. 13.  On 16 December 1999 the Samandağ Civil Court of First Instance upheld the request of the Treasury and decided to annul the record in the title deed registry. It also ordered the applicant to reimburse the legal expenses of the plaintiff.
The summary of the court’s reasoning in its final decision is as follows:
“At the time when the coastline had been determined, Law no. 6785 on urbanism (9 July 1956) was in force. The definition of the coastline found in Article 105 of Law no. 6785 is similar to the description in the Coastal Law (Law no. 3621, 4 April 1990). Article 43 of the Constitution provides that the coasts are under the authority of the State. This assertion is also established by Article 641 of the Civil Code, Article 33 of the Land Registry Law and Article 16 of the Cadastral Law. Thus, coasts cannot be subject to private property rights. As it is stated by the Constitutional Court in its decisions dated 25 February 1986 and 18 September 1991, the construction of buildings on these lands and the use of these buildings in good faith cannot provide a derogation from this rule.
In the light of the above, the court decides to annul the record in the title deed registry, which was in the name of the applicant. Furthermore it decides to prolong the interim measure, until the court’s decision becomes final.” 14.  The applicant appealed against this decision, arguing that he had a vested interest in this property that had to be respected by the authorities. He maintained that he had bought the plot of land relying on the records in the land registry and that he had paid the real-estate tax to the Samandağ Municipality since the registration of his title deed. Furthermore, he had obtained the necessary permission from the Municipality in order to build and to manage a cafeteria on it. Additionally, he claimed that the experts had erred in their establishment of the coastline. 15.  On 3 October 2000, in view of the expert reports as well as the established case law on this matter, the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Samandağ Court of First Instance. 16.  On 19 April 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification as none of the conditions required by Article 440 of the Code of Civil Procedure were present in the case. The applicant was notified of this decision on 23 May 2001.