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

Information

  • Judgment date: 2019-02-19
  • Communication date: 2017-04-06
  • Application number(s): 51292/07
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, P1-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.875334
  • 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 annulment of the applicant’s shares on the title deeds of a jointly owned property (parcels nos.
26015/5 and 10) by the domestic courts.
In 1995 the applicant and two other joint-owners brought an action for dissolution of the undivided ownership (izale-i şüyu davası) against other joint-owner, named T.D, alleging that T.D was an unknown person.
However, during those proceedings K.T was recognized as heir of T.D.
by the court as he had submitted a certificate of inheritance (verasetname) given by another domestic court.
On 27 January 2000 the Ankara Magistrates’ Court ordered the dissolution of the undivided ownership through tender offer.
Following the tender sales in February 2001, the applicant bough T.D.’s shares from K.T.
and had them registered in his name at the Land Registry.
In 2002 the Treasury brought an action before the Ankara General Jurisdiction of First Instance Court and sought the annulment of the applicant’s shares on the property previously owned by K.T., alleging that the K.T.’s certificate of inheritance had been terminated by the Beypazarı Magistrates’ Court’s judgment dated 1999.
On 30 June 2005 the Ankara First Instance Court accepted the Treasury’s request and annulled the title deeds at issue.
It then ordered registration of the said property in the name of the Treasury considering that the applicant’s acquisition of the shares was not valid since another court ruled K.T’s certificate of the inheritance was inaccurate.
The applicant complained that the deprivation of his property without any compensation had violated his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention.
QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the annulment of the applicant’s shares without any compensation constitute a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention?

Judgment