AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
by Cemal ŞEN
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Cemal Şen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Ankara. He is represented before the Court by Mr H. Çetin, a lawyer practising in Ankara.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 8 October 1985 the applicant bought a plot of land in Gölbaşı, Ankara. The title to the land indicated that the land measured 14,020 square meters. On an unspecified date the authorities realised that there had been a technical error in the measuring of the surface and mapping procedure (terhisat) of the area which had been carried out in 1951. On 20 February 1989 the applicant was informed of that error.
On 30 December 1996 the applicant instituted compensation proceedings against the Treasury, alleging that he was misguided by the erroneous information recorded in the title deed register at the time of purchasing the land in question. On 14 April 2003 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's claim. Referring to, inter alia, an on-site visit and an expert report, the court held that actual size of the plot owned by the applicant had not been reduced whereas the correction had only changed the size stated in the title deed. The court concluded that the applicant had not suffered any loss.
The applicant appealed. On 17 February 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. The applicant's request for rectification was further dismissed on 21 September 2004 and the decision was served to the applicant on 6 October 2004.
The applicant complained that the length of civil proceedings had exceeded the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
He further maintained under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his right to property had been infringed as the rectification of the title-deed register had reduced the size of his plot.
The Court observes that the proceedings lasted for some seven years and eight months before two levels of jurisdiction. It considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.
The Court observes that although the rectification effected by the Çankaya Cadastral Directorate did result in a reduction of the recorded area of the applicant's land, this reduction had effect only on paper and there was no corresponding physical interference with the applicant's land. The applicant, thus, continues to enjoy possession of the same area of land which he had initially bought.
In this connection the Court finds that the applicant has not suffered any real loss due to the rectification of the title-deed register and cannot be considered to be a victim of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint concerning the length of civil proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens