I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in ŞENGÜL v. TURKEY and 8 other applications.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2022-10-18
  • Communication date: 2017-12-13
  • Application number(s): 10596/13;10602/13;10603/13;10604/13;10605/13;10606/13;10607/13;10608/13;10609/13
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, P1-1, P1-1-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.546806
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applications concern the refusal of the domestic authorities to restitute to the applicants a plot of land donated to the administration with condition, despite the fact that disputed land had not been used for the designated purposes by the municipality.
The applications concern a plot of land situated in block no.
2956, parcel no.
1 in Eskişehir.
Following a cadastral work on the land, the applicants ceded the above mentioned land to the municipality for public interest purposes (in particular with the clause of “municipal service area”).
In 2005 there had been an amendment in the zoning plan and the land was divided into two lots.
The first part was allocated for the construction of a tram station.
The second part was allocated for public service and registered in the name of Odunpazarı Municipality.
Subsequently, the municipality started the construction of a dormitory on the second part of the land.
However after the construction was completed, the building was rented out to a private company as a hotel for ten years.
The applicants brought proceedings before the domestic courts to recover the possession of the land which had not been used for the designated purpose by the municipality.
However their requests were rejected on the ground that the plot of land in question was used in accordance with the clause of public service.
Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, the applicants complained of the refusal to restitute the donated land although it is not used for the donation condition.

Judgment