I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in BAYRAM v. TURKEY.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2021-08-31
  • Communication date: 2018-01-23
  • Application number(s): 33808/11
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 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)
    Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
    Just satisfaction)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.543201
  • Prediction: No violation

  • Inconsistent


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 application concerns the 10 years’ statutory time-limit to challenge results of cadastral surveys.
The applicant bought plots of land with registered title deeds in the province of Samsun in 1977.
On an unknown date, he built an apartment building on his land and rented it to a third person.
In 1989 a cadastral survey was conducted, following which, in 1992, the plots of land belonging to the applicant were registered in the name of the Treasury with an annotation stating that the applicant owned an apartment building on those plots.
On 14 May 2009 the applicant brought an action before the Samsun civil court of general jurisdiction alleging that the plot of land was erroneously registered in the name of the Treasury during the cadastral survey and that he had become aware of this situation after the administration had sent him a notification for his alleged unlawful occupation of the land in question.
He requested the court to annul the title deeds issued in favour of the Treasury and to register the land anew in his name.
The applicant’s action was rejected by the Samsun civil court of general jurisdiction and eventually by the Court of Cassation’s decision dated 23 November 2010 for failure to observe the 10 years’ statutory time-limit.
Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that he was deprived of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, namely the plots of land located in Samsun, as a result of arbitrary and erroneous decisions rendered by the local authorities and the domestic courts.

Judgment