4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Ankara. 5.  The applicant is the owner and director of a construction company registered in Turkey, the Mustafa Açıkgöz Construction Company Limited. 6.  On 26 April 1993 the applicant concluded a contract with S.K. and F.Ö., in which the applicant undertook to construct a building, comprising flats and shops, on a plot of land in Beypazarı belonging to S.K. and F.Ö. The owners were to transfer the ownership of the plot to the applicant and, on completion of the construction, the applicant was to transfer the ownership of six flats to S.K. and F.Ö. According to the contract, S.K. and F.Ö. were to have three flats each, two of which would be well lit by daylight. 7.  On 7 March 1994 S.K. brought a case against the applicant before the Beypazarı Civil Court, claiming that the applicant had constructed the building but had failed to transfer the ownership of the flats to her. S.K. requested that flats nos. 8, 15 and 18 be registered in her name. 8.  Twenty-eight hearings were held between 8 April 1994 and 1 May 1997. During the same interval five expert reports were submitted to the court either as to the division of flats and sections of the building or as to the luminosity of the flats. 9.  On 1 May 1997 the Beypazarı Civil Court granted S.K.’s request. 10.  On 3 December 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 1 May 1997, holding that the first-instance court had failed to assess the provisions of the contract between the applicant and S.K. correctly and, as a result, had designated the wrong flats. The Court of Cassation considered that the expression “well lit flats” contained in the contract should have been interpreted as meaning flats on the south side of the building. 11.  The applicant requested revision of the Court of Cassation’s decision. 12.  On 18 May 1998 the revision request was dismissed. 13.  The case was subsequently remitted to the first-instance court. 14.  Two hearings were held between 18 May 1998 and 24 September 1998. 15.  On 18 September 1998 an expert report was submitted to the court indicating that the sunnier flats were nos. 11, 14, 17 and 20. 16.  On 24 September 1998 the Beypazarı Civil Court decided that S.K. should be registered as the owner of sections nos. 5, 6 and 8 (whose size was equal to that of a flat), as well as flats nos. 17 and 20. 17.  On 7 April 1999 the Court of Cassation again quashed the first‑instance court’s judgment. It considered that the applicant had incurred unjustified loss as a result of that decision. 18.  The claimant requested review of the Court of Cassation’s decision. 19.  On 2 December 1999 the review request was dismissed. 20.  The case was subsequently remitted to the first-instance court. 21.  Six hearings were held between 2 December 1999 and 9 October 2000. 22.  On 26 May 2000 an expert report was submitted to the court. 23.  On 9 October 2000 the Beypazarı Civil Court decided that S.K. should be registered as the owner of sections nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 (whose total surface was less than that of flats nos. 5, 6 and 8), as well as flats nos. 17 and 20. 24.  On 30 April 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 9 October 2000. 25.  The applicant requested review of the Court of Cassation’s decision. 26.  On 8 October 2001 the Court of Cassation granted the applicant’s request, annulled its decision of 30 April 2001 and quashed the judgment of 9 October 2000. The Court of Cassation noted that the first-instance court had requested experts to draw up a report and to make proposals as to the division of the flats and sections of the building, and that on 26 May 2000 the experts had submitted a report containing seven proposals. It observed that the court had failed to give the applicant an opportunity to express his preference regarding these proposals. Instead it selected the first one of its own motion, which had had a detrimental outcome for the applicant. The case was subsequently remitted to the first‑instance court. 27.  Four hearings were held between 8 October 2001 and 8 July 2002. 28.  At the hearing of 11 March 2002, the Beypazarı Civil Court requested the applicant to state his preferred expert proposal, but he failed to respond within the set time-limit. 29.  On 8 July 2002 the Beypazarı Civil Court gave judgment and ordered that S.K. be registered in the land register as the owner of sections nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, as well as flats nos. 17 and 20. 30.  On 21 April 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 8 July 2002.