I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in THE CHIEF RABBINATE OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN IZMIR v. TURKEY.

Information

• Judgment date: 2023-03-21
• Communication date: 2019-12-18
• Application number(s): 1574/12
• Country:   TUR
• Relevant ECHR article(s): P1-1
• Conclusion:
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
  (Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae
  Preliminary objection joined to merits (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
  (Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae
  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: 0.556537
• Prediction: No violation

• Inconsistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant is the Chief Rabbinate of the Jewish Community in Izmir.
The application concerns the registration of a property, which the applicant claims to be in its use since 1605, in the name of the Treasury, and the domestic courts’ dismissal of the applicant’s claim to have it registered in its name.
Following a cadastral work carried out in 1930, the property at issue was entered in the land register with an annotation noting that it was a rabbinate.
The owner part was left blank.
By a zoning act in 1989, it was registered as a block comprising two separate plots; plots 10 and 11 of block no.
7378.
In 2000 the applicant lodged an action before the Izmir Cadastral Court, claiming the registration of both plots in its name in the land register.
That case was dismissed by the domestic court, which found that the cadastral works needed to be completed before it could reach a decision.
That judgment became final in 2003.
As a result of the cadastral work carried out in 2004, the owner of approximately half of the shares of plot 10 and all of plot 11 was determined as the Treasury, on the grounds that the applicant had not provided the permit from the Directorate of Foundations and the decision of the Committee of Ministers.
The building on plot 11 was found to belong to the applicant.
Subsequently, in 2005 the applicant lodged another action, this time claiming the registration of the property in its name on account of acquisitive prescription.
On 21 March 2008 the Izmir Cadastral Court dismissed the case in line with the findings of the last cadastral work, concluding that the impugned plots had been registered to the Treasury due to the applicant’s failure to provide the required documents from the Directorate of Foundations and the Committee of Ministers, both of which it considered were required for the registration of the property in the applicant’s name.
The domestic court held that there had not been sufficient proof to support the applicant’s claim to the property and declared that it should be registered in the name of the Treasury, with an annotation in the land register which would state that the owner of the building on plot 11 was the applicant.
On 15 March 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
Besides the reasoning provided by the Cadastral Court, the appellate court added that the applicant had also failed to register the property in 1912 and 1913, as required by the Provisional Law on the Legal Persons’ Ownership of Immovable Property dated 1912 (Eşhas-ı Hükmiyenin Emval-ı Gayr-i Menkûleye Tasarruflarına Mahsus Kanun-i Muvakkat).
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention that the registration of the property to the Treasury violated its right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
In that connection, the applicant challenges the domestic court’s conclusion regarding the lack of sufficient proof, noting that it has been using the impugned property since 1605.
It also argues, in particular, that it was not clear why the domestic court assessed the ownership of the land and the building separately, and considered the applicant as a foundation.