Last Updated on April 27, 2019 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48654/06
Umut KONUR and others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Valeriu Griţco, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Darian Pavli, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 November 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants, Mr UmutKonur and Ms GülnarKonur, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1981 and 1939 respectively and live in Zonguldak.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. The first applicant is the son of the second applicant.
5. On 17 August 1999 the building in which the flat of the applicants was situated collapsed as a result of an earthquake. According to the land registry records, the first applicant was the owner and the second applicant was the usufructuary of this flat.
6. On an unspecified date the second applicant applied to the administration, requesting to be recognised as a “right holder” (haksahibi) within the meaning of Law no. 7269, according to which a new residence or financial support would be provided to those families whose homes were destroyed as a result of the earthquake.
7. On 29 February 2000 the administration refused to recognise the second applicant as a right holder under Law no. 7269, holding that she failed to submit documentary evidence proving ownership of the flat in question.
8. On an unspecified date the first applicant initiated proceedings before the Istanbul Administrative Court (“the Administrative Court”), seeking the annulment of the decision dated 29 February 2000.
9. On 12 December 2001 the Administrative Court dismissed the case, holding that the first applicant did not have a legal interest in bringing an action for the annulment of the impugned decision as it concerned the second applicant.
10. On 20 February 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court decided that as the owner of the flat in question, the first applicant had legal interest in bringing such an action. It accordingly quashed the judgment of 12 December 2001 and remitted the case to the Administrative Court.
11. On 22 June 2005 the Administrative Court decided to annul the administration’s decision of 29 February 2000. It held that it was evident from the title deed submitted by the applicants that they were the owner and the usufructuary of the flat in question. Hence, the administration’s decision of 29 February 2000 was not in compliance with the law.
12. On 16 November 2005 the Administrative Court’s judgment was served on the administration. No appeal was filed against this judgement.
13. On 7 August 2006 the administration recognised the first applicant as a right holder under Law no. 7269. That decision was approved by the relevant Ministry on 21 December 2006.
14. On 14 November 2012 a residence was allocated to the first applicant. However, he failed to take the procedural steps required to acquire the property of the residence. As a result, he lost his status as a right holder for the purposes of Law no. 7269.
COMPLAINTS
15. The applicants complained under several Articles of the Convention that the domestic authorities had failed to comply with the Administrative Court’s judgment of 22 June 2005.
16. In their observations dated 24 October 2018, the applicants submitted a number of new complaints concerning the quality and the cost of the housing provided to the right holders under Law no. 7269.
THE LAW
17. The applicants’ complaints relates mainly to the alleged non‑enforcement of the Administrative Court’s judgment of 22 June 2005 given in their favour.
18. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, among many others, Güler and Kekeç v. Turkey, nos. 33994/06 and 36271/06, §§ 20-28, 7 June 2011).
19. The Government submitted, inter alia, that on 7 August 2006 the first applicant was recognised as a right holder, that this decision was approved by the relevant Ministry on 21 December 2006 and that the Administrative Court’s judgment of 22 June 2005 was enforced.
20. The applicants argued that the administration’s decision recognising the first applicant as a right holder was given fourteen months after the date of the judgment of the Administrative Court.
21. The Court observes that the impugned judgment was enforced on 7 August 2006, the date on which the first applicant was recognised as a right holder by the administration, that is, less than nine months after its service on 16 November 2005 to the administration. It considers that this period is not excessively long as to raise a Convention issue (see, among many others, Şerbănescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 43638/10, § 9, 1 December 2016).
22. The Court further notes that, after the communication of the case to the respondent Government, the applicants submitted a number of new complaints about the quality and cost of the housing provided to the right holders pursuant to Law no. 7269 (see paragraph 16 above).
23. In this regard, the Court observes that the Administrative Court’s judgment of 22 June 2005, which is the subject of the present application, concerned only the annulment of the administration’s decision of 29 February 2000 and not the housing allocation modalities under Law no. 7269.
24. In any event, even if the issues mentioned by the applicants in their observations of 24 October 2018 in respect of the housing allocation modalities could be taken as new complaints, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
25. It follows that the application is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2019.
Hasan Bakırcı ValeriuGriţco
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply