8.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lives in Istanbul. He is the heir of Mr Mustafa Rıfat Günter and Mrs Rabia Günter. 9.  On 27 March 1985 Mr Mustafa Rıfat Günter and Mrs Rabia Günter made an oral will, in the presence of two witnesses, in which they undertook to give the property rights of their house to the Darülaceze (the poor people's house in Istanbul) in exchange for life-long support. Following this agreement, they were taken to the Darülaceze, where they died on 3 May 1985 and 2 May 1985 respectively. 10.  On 7 May 1985 the Darülaceze requested the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters to grant probate on Mr and Mrs Günter's will. On the same day the court read out the will and recognised the Darülaceze as the legal heir to their property. The decision of the court was notified to the heirs, whose names and addresses were known to the court. The applicant was not personally notified of this decision. However, a further notification was made by way of a newspaper publication for those whose names and addresses were not known to the court. 11.  On 29 December 1992 the applicant filed a petition with the Istanbul First Instance Court in Civil Matters requesting the issue of an inheritance certificate (veraset ilamı), indicating the legal heirs of Mr and Mrs Günter and determining the individual shares. 12.  On 25 May 1993 the applicant brought an action against the Darülaceze before the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters, requesting a declaration that Mr and Mrs Günter's oral will was null and void. He claimed that the will did not satisfy procedural requirements as Mr and Mrs Günter had lacked legal capacity due to their old age. The first hearing took place on 14 July 1993. The representative of the applicant requested time to submit the list of evidence. 13.  On 10 October 1993 the Treasury filed an action with a different chamber of the same court, also requesting the court to declare Mr and Mrs Günter's will null and void. 14.  On 21 October 1993 the applicant submitted his list of evidence to the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters. The court gave time to the Darülaceze to submit its list of evidence. 15.  On 16 December 1993 neither the applicant nor his representatives attended the hearing. As the Darülaceze stated that it did not wish to continue the case, the case was removed from the list. The applicant renewed the case on 28 January 1994. 16.  On 14 April 1994 the applicant did not attend the hearing, but instead he sent a letter of excuse. 17.  At the hearing on 28 April 1994, the applicant maintained that, as the case initiated before the Istanbul First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction concerning the certificate of inheritance of Mr and Mrs Günter was not finalised, the court should postpone the case until after the judicial holidays. The court adjourned the hearing until September, considering that the issue of the inheritance certificate was a prerequisite question (ön mesele) for the present case. 18.  On 20 September 1994 the applicant requested a further adjournment as the case concerning the certificate of inheritance was not finalised. 19.  On 27 December 1994 the parties did not attend the hearing. The applicant sent a letter of excuse. 20.  At the following two hearings, the applicant requested a further adjournment again because the case concerning the certificate of inheritance was not finalised. 21.  On 11 July 1995 the court decided to join the Treasury's case to the applicant's. 22.  On 3 October 1995 the court took the statements of one of the two witnesses named by the applicant. The court was unable to find the other witness as her name was misspelled. It corrected the name of the second witness and sent her a summons. 23.  At the hearings of 26 December 1995 and 2 April 1996, the court postponed the case as the applicant did not attend but sent a letter of excuse. 24.  On 27 June 1996 the second witness named by the applicant gave her statement before the court. As the case concerning the certificate of inheritance was not finalised, the court adjourned to a further date. 25.  At the hearings on 5 November 1996 and 29 January 1997, the applicant did not attend, again sending excuses, and informing the court that the case concerning the inheritance certificate was before the Court of Cassation. 26.  On 15 April 1997 the applicant submitted the inheritance certificate to the court. 27.  On 19 June 1997 the applicant requested the Court to consult with the Forensic Medicine Institute before deciding on the legal capacity of Mr and Mrs Günter. The Forensic Medicine Institute informed the court that the documents in the case-file were insufficient to decide the matter. On 16 October 1997 the court requested the Darülaceze to submit all the medical reports concerning Mr and Mrs Günter. On 18 December 1997 the Darülaceze informed the court that they did not possess any such documents. 28.  On 10 March 1998 the Forensic Medicine Institute drafted a report which concluded that it was impossible to decide the matter on the basis of the current file. 29.  On 17 March 1998 the court held that an action for the annulment of a testamentary disposition (ölüme bağlı tasarruf) must be lodged within a year of the date on which the claimant becomes aware of the reason for nullity or, in any case, within five years after the will was notified to the heirs. It noted that, although the will of Mr and Mrs Günter was notified to the heirs on 7 May 1985, the action was not brought by the applicant before 25 May 1993. It therefore concluded that the applicant's case must be dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory time-limit. The applicant appealed. 30.  On 8 October 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 15 February 1999 the applicant's request for rectification of the decision was dismissed.