PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 5298/06) 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 two Turkish nationals, Mr Rıdvan Saruhan and Mr Abdulvahit Çelik (“the applicants”), on 2 February 2006.

The applicants were represented by Mr C. Göksel, a lawyer practising in İstanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 18 June 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

The first applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Mardin. By a letter dated 11 June 2008, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the second applicant had died on 10 March 2007 and that his son Mr Abdulvahap Çelik wished to pursue the application.

In 1974, a third person named B.A. inherited a plot of land from her mother, a Syrian national. However, she did not have the land registered in her name at the time.

On 9 July 1996 B.A.’s representative signed an agreement with the applicants before a notary public, promising to sell the land to them. The applicants paid the amount due and were told that B.A. would finalise the relevant formalities and transfer the ownership of the land to the applicants in the shortest possible time.

On 1 August 1996 the applicants brought an action against B.A. before the Üsküdar Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. They claimed that she had failed to transfer the ownership of the land to them, although they had paid the purchase price. They requested that the land be registered in their names.

On 30 December 2003 the court dismissed the action. It held that on 1 October 1966 the Cabinet of Ministers had issued a decree seizing the property of Syrian nationals living in Turkey, including the land in question. As the land had been owned by the State since 1966, the court concluded that the sale agreement of 9 July 1996 signed by B.A. was void.

Both parties appealed against that decision. B.A. also put forward a plea of unconstitutionality against the decree of 1966.

On 28 February 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the plea of unconstitutionality and upheld the first instance court’s decision.

On 7 July 2005 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ request for rectification. This decision was not served on the applicants and they learned about the outcome of the proceedings by tracking their application through the Court of Cassation’s web site.