5.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1940 and live in Muğla and Istanbul respectively. 6.  In 1926, the Turkish State (the Treasury) sold a plot of land known as the Yana Farm, located in Balıkesir, to an individual who later sold it to the applicants’ predecessors (“the Yavaş family”). 7.  On 12 September 1986 the Forest Cadastral Commission (“the FCC”), a Government agency, conducted a boundary marking exercise (tahdit çalışması). The purpose of this exercise was to detect forest areas which had not been included on the cadastral map. Following this exercise the FCC established that a portion of the Yana Farm had been unlawfully designated as agricultural land. The FCC reclassified it as forest land. Accordingly, on 31 July 1987, the FCC initiated a revocation procedure for partial annulment of the title deed. 8.  On 11 November 1987, the applicants’ predecessors, the Yavaş family, brought an action in the Marmaris Cadastral Court since a portion of their registered land had been classified as forest land. They asked the court to annul the results of the boundary marking exercise and to reclassify their land as outside the forest area. 9.  On 24 October 1988 the court conducted a survey of the land with the assistance of three experts on forest, agriculture and cadastral engineering. The forest engineer drew up a sketch map of the area and divided it into plots named (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F) and (G). Having examined the sketch map the court found that it was consistent with the general plans and the land. 10.  On 9 August 1990 the Marmaris Cadastral Court ruled in favour of the applicants’ predecessors, the Yavaş family, with respect to the plots shown as (A), (B), (C) and (F) on a sketch prepared by court-appointed experts. However, it dismissed the request as regards plots (D) and (G), finding that they were part of the State forest. The Forestry Directorate appealed. 11.  On 16 March 1992 the Court of Cassation quashed the above ruling considering that the Cadastral Court had erred in its assessment of the nature of the land. It observed that, even if the natural flora had been destroyed, the land remained forest land. It further noted that the first-instance court had relied on the title deeds submitted by the litigants and that the measurement of that land had been enlarged from 8,000 sq. m to 8,640 sq. m by the judgment of the Erdek Civil Court dated 8 September 1960. However, given that the Forestry Directorate was not a party to those proceedings, the finding of the Erdek Civil Court did not have any binding effect for the purposes of the current proceedings. The Court of Cassation thus remitted the case to the Marmaris Cadastral Court for further examination. 12.  On 15 June 1994 the applicants purchased the Yana Farm from the Yavaş family. The relevant page of the log kept at the land registry office does not contain any annotation concerning the proceedings in question. 13.  On an unspecified date, following the purchase of the Yana farm by the applicants, the Marmaris Land Registry invited the applicants to intervene in the proceedings. The court then joined the applicants’ case to that initiated by the Forest Directorate, who alleged that a portion of plot no. 142/2 was within forest boundaries. 14.  On 18 June 1994 the Marmaris Cadastral Court carried out a second survey of the disputed land with the assistance of new experts. 15.  On 4 May 1995 the Marmaris Cadastral Court dismissed the applicants’ case on the basis of the report prepared by the experts, who had concluded that the disputed land in question was part of forest land and that the previous group of experts had erred in their assessment. The court then ordered the registration of the portion of land, indicated as plot (A) in the sketch-map and measuring 1,106.91 sq. m, with the title of the Treasury as forest land. Plot (A) was thus separated from plot no. 2 owned by the applicants and joined to plot no. 3 owned by the Treasury as public forest. 16.  On 12 December 1995, the Court of Cassation quashed this ruling on the grounds of insufficient factual examination. In addition, the court ruled that the right of appeal of the applicants (who had in the meantime inherited the farm) was time-barred with regard to plots (D) and (G). The parties accepted therefore that plots (D) and (G) were part of the public forest. 17.  Thereafter, proceedings involving re-examinations by the Court of Cassation and the Marmara Cadastral Court continued and a new sketch of the disputed land was prepared. The new sketch map qualified certain portions of the land as (D1) and (F1). 18.  Ultimately, on 24 November 1999, the Marmaris Cadastral Court found that plots (A), (B), (C), (D1), (F) and (F1) were part of forest land. It noted however that plots (C) and (E) were agricultural land. The court dismissed the applicants’ case and ruled that plot (D1), measuring 1106.91 sq. m, should be registered with the title of the Treasury and that the remaining land, measuring 19,1768.09 sq. m, should be registered in the name of the applicants (half the land for each applicant). The applicants and the Forestry Directorate appealed. 19.  On 30 October 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal. However, it upheld the Forestry Directorate’s appeal only in respect of plot (F1). The court considered that the first-instance court had failed to rule on plot (F1) although it had found that that plot formed part of forest land. 20.  On 25 December 2000 the applicants applied to the Court of Cassation for rectification of the above decision with regard to plot (F1). 21.  On 13 June 2002 the Marmaris Cadastral Court ordered the registration of plot (F1) in the name of the Treasury. It noted that the judgment concerning plots (A), (B), (C), (D) (D1), (E), (F) and (G) had already become final and that therefore there was no need to give a new ruling. 22.  On 7 March 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ request for rectification of the decision dated 25 December 2000. This decision was served on the applicants on 11 November 2002. 23.  The applicants have limited the current case before the Court to plot (F1).