14 May Violation of the right to property due to the lack of the right to compensation

In the case of Kaynar and Others v. Turkey (applications nos. 21104/06, 51103/06 and 18809/07, 07.05.2019) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) to the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The case concerned civil proceedings dealing with claims in respect of the ownership of land purchased by the applicants and classified as a “natural site” whose ownership was unregistered. The applicants purchased land on the island of Gökçeada. In 1996 the land was registered in the name of the Treasury, in connection with a cadastral review. That same year, the applicants applied to the Gökçeada land tribunal seeking the registration of the land in their names, in accordance with the rules on adverse possession. In 2004, the domestic courts decided to register the land in the name of the Treasury on the basis of a new law which came into force during the proceedings. Land classified as a “natural site” could no longer be acquired by adverse possession. As a result, the applicants’ claim was dismissed and they did not receive any compensation.

The Court found in particular that the change in legislation had deprived the applicants of the possibility of obtaining the registration of their land, even though they could legitimately have expected to meet all the requirements for recognition as owners. It also found that the applicants, who had not received any compensation for their loss of property, had thus had to bear an individual and excessive burden.

The Court also found that domestic law now allowed reparation for such a breach. An appeal to the compensation board, whose remit had been extended in 2019 by presidential ordinance no. 809, would now enable the applicants to obtain compensation. 

Taking the view that this appeal would represent an appropriate means of remedying the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court decided to strike out the part of the application relating to Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction). 

The Court also found that the length of the proceedings (about 10 years), in the context of applications lodged by two of the applicants, did not satisfy the requirement of a reasonable time. Thus, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and it awarded those applicants just satisfaction for their non-pecuniary damage. 

References from the official website of the European Court on Human Rights