4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Uşak. 5.  On 2 July 1999 Mr A.Ç. filed a criminal complaint with the Hatay public prosecutor against Mr M.Y. to whom he had sold his vehicle with registration number 04 M 3070. He alleged that, during the sale, Mr M.Y. used fake identity papers and gave him fake bonds in return for his vehicle. 6.  On 4 August 1999 the applicant bought a vehicle with a registration number 64 AF 984 from Mr M.O. to use in the course of his professional activities and registered it under his name in the Traffic Registry. 7.  On 20 September 1999 the Hatay public prosecutor found that the vehicle which had been sold by Mr A. Ç to Mr M.Y. was subsequently sold to the applicant with a fake registration number. The prosecutor therefore ordered the confiscation of the vehicle. 8.  On 28 September 1999 the Hatay public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against Mr M.Y. for fraud and for forging false identity papers. The charges were brought under Article 503 § 1, 522 and 350 of the Criminal Code. 9.  On 8 October 1999 the criminal proceedings against Mr M.Y. commenced before the Hatay Criminal Court and the applicant intervened in the proceedings as a third party together with three other people. 10.  On 17 July 2000 the applicant requested the restitution of his car. This request was rejected by the court on 18 July 2000 on the ground that the ownership of the car was in dispute. 11.  On 18 October 2000 the first-instance court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Hatay Assize Court. 12.  On 31 October 2000 the proceedings before the Hatay Assize Court commenced. 13.  In the hearing held on 11 January 2001, the court dismissed the requests of restitution of both the applicant and Mr A.Ç. on the ground that the ownership of the car was in dispute. 14.  On 26 June 2001 the court decided that the car could be returned to the applicant for his use pending the criminal proceedings. It set the amount of TRL 5,000,000 as a deposit. The applicant was unable to request the return of the car since he could not pay the deposit. 15.  On an unspecified date, the applicant requested the court to allow the car to be returned to him, pending criminal proceedings, without a deposit. 16.  On 19 September 2002 the court ordered the return of the car to the applicant, pending criminal proceedings, without a deposit. The car was examined for any damage sustained during its seizure before being delivered to the applicant on 2 October 2002. 17.  The criminal proceedings are still pending before the Hatay Assize Court since, despite an arrest warrant, Mr M.Y. has still not been found.