4.  The applicants were born in 1924, 1932, 1940, 1949, 1946, 1944, 1937 and 1934 respectively and live in different cities in Turkey. 5.  On various dates, the applicants inherited or bought plots of land and properties near the coasts in different parts of Turkey, namely in Çanakkale, Şarköy, Izmir, Mudanya and Seferihisar. Some of the applicants constructed houses or operated commercial entities on their land. 6.  On different dates, the Treasury requested from the competent courts of first instance to determine whether the applicants’ properties were located within the coastal strip. A group of experts appointed by the courts inspected the plots of land and any existing buildings on them and concluded that they were located within the coastline area. 7.  Following the conclusion of the expert reports, the Treasury brought actions before the relevant courts, requesting the annulment of the applicants’ title deeds to the land and the properties, on the ground that they were located within the coastal area. 8.  On various dates, the courts of first instance upheld the request of the Treasury and annulled in full the applicants’ title deeds in application nos. 23953/05, 37166/05, 19638/06 and 17654/07, whereas the title deeds in the remaining two applications were partially annulled. In their decisions, the courts held that, pursuant to domestic law (the Coastal Law of 1990), the coasts could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicants could not rely on the argument that they had acted bona fides or on the fact that they had constructed buildings on the plots of land. 9.  Appeals by the applicants against these judgments were dismissed by the Court of Cassation. Some of the applicants’ requests for rectification of the judgments were also rejected by that court. 10.  In application no. 23953/05 the applicant brought an action for damages in the Şarköy Civil Court of First Instance on account of his loss of ownership and the demolition of four shops located on the land. On 28 October 2003 the Şarköy Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s action on the ground that, inter alia, the State was not liable for the damage resulting from the cancellation of the registration of the property in issue. The applicant appealed. In a judgment of 24 September 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. A rectification request by the applicant was further dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 17 March 2005.
The details concerning the six applications are indicated in the table below:
 
 
 

Application no. and date of lodging
Name of the applicants
Name of court and date of decision 
Date of final decision of Court of Cassation
Date of notification of final decision of Court of Cassation
16858/05
(15.4.2005)
Necdet Terzioğlu
Selma Fatma Terzioğlu