PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 31881/02) 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 a Turkish national, Mr Bedran Gencer (“the applicant”), on 22 July 2002.

The applicant was represented by Mr H. Cangir, a lawyer practising in Mardin. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant alleged that, as a result of unfair decisions given by the domestic courts, he had been deprived of his land which was the main source of income for his family. He relied on Articles 6, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

On 15 January 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Şanlıurfa.

On 22 November 1984 Law no. 3083 came into force. Article 5 of this law provided the possibility of leasing State land to farmers who were in need and who fulfilled certain eligibility criteria (“right holders”). In particular, Article 24 § 1 of Law no. 3083 provided that those who had been convicted of certain offences were not entitled to benefit from this law (see paragraph 16 below).

Following the promulgation of Law no. 3083, the applicant applied to the Commission which determined the eligibility of farmers to be right holders and requested to be provided with land in Ceylanpınar in the south-east of Turkey.

On 1 March 1999 the applicant was identified as a right holder and leased land from the Directorate General for Agricultural Reform (Tarım Reformu Genel Müdürlüğü) (“the Directorate General”) for an indefinite period on payment of a rent. The applicant earned his living by cultivating this land.

On 11 May 2000, after conducting a “security investigation”, the Directorate General annulled the right holder status of the applicant.

On 31 May 2000 the applicant brought an action in the Gaziantep Administrative Court requesting the stay of execution and reversal of the Directorate General’s decision.

On 8 June 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court decided to request the defendant administration to indicate the reasons which grounded its decision to annul the right holder status of the applicant. The court invited the defendant administration to submit their response and relevant documents within thirty days.

On 2 August 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a stay of execution of the decision, holding that necessary conditions were not met.

On an unspecified date, the Directorate General refused to submit the information or documents requested by the Gaziantep Administrative Court. In this respect, the Directorate General relied on Article 20 § 3 of the Law on Administrative Procedure which provides that the Prime Minister or other Government Minister may refrain from submitting information or documents to an administrative court if the information or documents in question pertain to the security or vital interests of the State.

On 7 December 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case. The court held that the impugned decision of 11 May 2000 and the refusal of the Directorate General to submit the relevant information and documents had been in accordance with the domestic legislation. The applicant appealed.

On 15 April 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. This decision was served on the applicant on 5 July 2002.