4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Şanlıurfa. 5.  In the cadastral survey carried out in 1964 some plots of land in Siverek village were registered in the names of the applicant and a number of other individuals. In 1971 an individual further donated his share of a plot in the same village to the applicant. 6.  On 28 August 1972 two villagers (O.T., H.Y.) instituted civil proceedings against another villager (M.E.) objecting to the cadastral registrations and claiming that they were the lawful owners of the land in question on the basis of a registration dating from before 1950. It appears that on unspecified dates during the course of the proceedings numerous villagers, including the applicant, became parties to the proceedings, which continued with three complainants, seventeen defendants and two intervening third parties. Both the claimants and defendants claimed to have title to the land in question. 7.  On 9 June 1983 the trial court requested the applicant's address to be determined so that he could be summoned before the court. On 20 March 1985 the trial court decided to publish the summons in a country-wide newspaper in an attempt to determine the applicant's whereabouts. 8.  On 18 November 1985 H.Y. submitted a letter to the trial court informing the judge of an agreement he had reached with the applicant and stating that the applicant would appear before the court to testify accordingly. 9.  The case file indicates that the applicant did not appear before the trial court until 22 March 2004, when he presented himself as one of the parties. On 22 November 2004 the applicant's representative submitted a power of attorney to the trial court. 10.  During the course of the proceedings the court held an on-site inspection on 23 June 1986. A number of expert reports were requested concerning the title registrations. Numerous witnesses were heard on various occasions. Some of the defendants transferred part of their shares to others on different dates. 11.  On 5 March 2007 the Siverek Cadastral Court delivered its judgment in favour of the applicant and the other defendants. It appears that the number of claimants and defendants had reached twenty-eight and eighty-one respectively by the time the judgment was delivered. 12.  The case is still pending before the Court of Cassation.