Published on 7 April 2025
 
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 23981/24
Gülendam KINACI and Others
against Türkiye
lodged on 2 August 2024
communicated on 19 March 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the loss of immovable property without compensation suffered by the applicants.
The immovable property in question was originally a public property but was sold by the Yemliha Municipality (“Municipality”) to third parties in 1974 and subsequently acquired from them by the applicants’ de cujus.
At the end of a series of civil proceedings, it was decided that the immovable property was a public asset that could not be privately owned. Accordingly, it was registered as belonging to the Treasury.
The applicants’ de cujus subsequently brought an action for compensation for the damages they had suffered against the relevant municipality and the Treasury. This claim for damages included the immovable property as well as the constructions on it. The claim was dismissed as regards the annulment of the title deed property on the grounds that the sale by the Municipality was invalid ab initio and as regards the constructions on the grounds that the de cujus had not yet been evicted.
The applicants complain of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of the possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention in respect of the loss of the immovable property without compensation.
 
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, due to the loss of immovable property without compensation? In particular, in view of the Court’s relevant case‑law (Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, §§ 64-83, 6 December 2011; Semenov v. Russia, no. 17254/15, §§ 59-72, 16 March 2021; Beinarovič and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 70520/10, 21920/10 and 41876/11, §§ 138‑164, 12 June 2018; and Muharrem Güneş and Others v. Turkey, no. 23060/08, §§ 70‑83, 24 November 2020), did the interference strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicants within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
 
APPENDIX
No.
Applicant’s Name
 
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Gülendam KINACI
1951
Turkish
Kayseri
2.
Fatma ARIK
1978
Turkish
Kayseri
3.
Ahmet KINACI
1980
Turkish
Kayseri
4.
Erdal KINACI
1971
Turkish
Kayseri
5.
Hasene KINACI
1974
Turkish
Kayseri
6.
Yeter KINACI
1979
Turkish
Kayseri
7.
Medine OĞUZ
1977
Turkish
Kayseri