PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 7436/02) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Turkish nationals, Mr İsmail Şencan, Ms Hülya Şencan and Mr Nejdet Şencan (“the applicants”), on 12 October 2001.

The applicants were represented by Mr F. Yurdakul, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

On 1 June 2006 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicants were born in 1955, 1973 and 1962 respectively and live in Istanbul.

The applicants signed contracts with third persons before the notary public to acquire de facto possession (zilyedlik) of a plot of land in Gökçeada.

On 10 May 1990, 27 August 1991 and 18 May 1992 respectively, the applicants filed three separate actions with the Gökçeada Civil Court of General Jurisdiction and requested that their title to the plot in question be registered in the Land Registry records.

On 11 September 1991 and 16 March 1992 respectively the first‑instance court partially accepted the requests of the first and third applicants. Subsequently, on 28 April 1992 and 6 November 1992 respectively, the Court of Cassation quashed these judgments, holding that the Gökçeada Civil Court of General Jurisdiction had failed to carry out the necessary examination in order to determine the nature of the plot. The cases were remitted to the first-instance court.

On 12 October 1992 and 15 March 1993 the first-instance court once again partially accepted İsmail and Nejdet Şencan's claims. On 21 June 1993 the Gökçeada Civil Court of General Jurisdiction also partially accepted the second applicant's claim. In its judgments, the first-instance court held that the fact that the land in question appeared as “meadowland” in the tax registration records did not mean that it could not be the subject of private ownership.

On 18 April 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the three judgments of the first-instance court and held that the first-instance court should have taken into account the tax registration records and accepted the applicants' claims only in respect of the parts of the plot which were used for agriculture. It further held that meadowlands could not be subject to private ownership. The cases were remitted to the Gökçeada Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.

On 26 September 1994 all three cases were joined.

On 13 June 1995 the first-instance court again partially accepted the applicants' claims. In its judgment, the court stated that the plot in question was not designated as “meadowland” in the land registration records and that, therefore, it could be subject to private ownership.

On 24 June 1996 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, holding that according to the documents in the case-file, the plot in question was meadowland and that therefore the applicants could not have their title registered.

On 31 July 1996 the Gökçeada Civil Court of General Jurisdiction issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the Gökçeada Cadastre Court.

On 5 June 1997 the Gökçeada Cadastre Court rendered its judgment and partially accepted the applicants' claims.

On 20 May 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the cadastre court.

On 16 April 1999 the Gökçeada Cadastre Court abided by the Court of Cassation's decision, holding that according to the tax registration records the land in question was meadowland and that it could not be subject to private ownership. The court further held that the land should be officially designated as a second degree conservation area.

On 21 March 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

On 6 April 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants' request for rectification. This decision was served on the applicants' representative on 30 April 2001.