SAVAŞÇIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Inadmissible
Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković
1. The applicants, Mr Mehmet Yılmaz Savaşçın, Ms Ayşe Şayan Ataklı, Ms Yılma Savaşçın and Ms Solmaz Gülper Refiğ, are four Turkish nationals. They were born in 1941, 1948, 1938 and 1943 respectively. They were represented before the Court by Ms Fatma Belgin Adalı, a lawyer practising in Izmir. 2. s, may be summarised as follows. 3. In 1976 the applicants purchased a plot of land measuring 7,860 sq. m in Foça, in the Yenifoça Salhan District of Izmir, which had been registered in the land register as parcel no. 2066. 4. On 30 November 1999, following a claim submitted by the forest administration, the Foça Civil Court of First Instance ordered that the applicants’ title deed be annulled and the land entered in the land register as belonging to the Treasury, holding that the land was part of the public forest. An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the applicants were subsequently rejected by the Court of Cassation and the decision became final on 4 February 2002. 5. On 14 June 2002 the applicants brought a case before the Foça Civil Court of First Instance. They sought compensation for pecuniary damage from the Treasury under Article 917 of the old Civil Code, which prescribed that the State was responsible for any damage resulting from the keeping of the land registry records. 6. On 21 December 2004 the Foça Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ compensation claim. The Court of Cassation rejected an appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the applicants, and the decision became final on 31 October 2006. 7. Under Article 169 of the Turkish Constitution of 1982, ownership of public forests may not be transferred to others; public forests will be managed and exploited by the State in accordance with the law. Ownership of such forests cannot be acquired through adverse possession, nor may forests be subject to any easement, unless it is considered to be in the public interest. 8. Under section 7 of Law no. 6831 of 31 August 1956, the cadastral commissions decide whether an area will be categorized as a public forest or a private forest. The same law governs the way in which the cadastral commissions operate (sections 7 to 12). 9. A full description of the relevant domestic law and practice regarding the designation of land as public forest may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey (no. 1411/03, §§ 41-67, 8 July 2008). 10. The object of Law no. 6384 was to provide for the settlement, by means of compensation, of applications lodged with the Court concerning length of judicial proceedings, and non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions. A Compensation Commission was set up for that purposes. A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). 11. The competence ratione materiae of the Compensation Commission was subsequently extended by a decree which came into force on 16 March 2014. The decree extended the competence of the Compensation Commission to the examination of other complaints, such as alleged restriction of the right of detainees to correspondence in a language other than Turkish and the prison authorities’ refusal, on different grounds, to hand over periodicals. A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 44013/07, §§ 9-17, 27 May 2014). 12. The Turkish Council of Ministers issued a decree which came into force on 9 March 2016. The decree extended anew the competence ratione materiae of the Compensation Commission. 13. The Compensation Commission is now entitled to examine the following subjects under Article 4 of the decree, which reads as follows: “a) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant’s title deeds because his or her land was classified as part of the public forest area, or as a result of the application of section 2/B of Law no. 6831, or because the land was classified as part of the public forest area in cadastral surveys; b) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant’s title deeds because the impugned land was classified as located within a coastal area; c) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of the impugned land for public use in local land development plans; d) Applications concerning an alleged breach of an applicant’s right to private and family life on account of the respective disciplinary sanctions imposed on detainees and convicted persons by the prison authorities; e) Applications concerning an alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence on account of the prison administration’s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence drafted in Turkish.”