ECHR ruling on 'Külliye': Inadmissible

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has found the application by the Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB) regarding the "Presidential Complex" to be "inadmissible."

According to the ECHR ruling, the TMMOB Ankara Branch had applied to the ECHR alleging that their "right to access a court was violated" because a stay of execution order, issued in a lawsuit filed against the 2010 zoning plan covering the area within the Atatürk Forest Farm boundaries, was not implemented and construction of the Presidential Complex continued.

In its application, the TMMOB claimed that they were defending the public interest and that the requirements of judicial decisions were not being fulfilled.

The ECHR, having examined the application, ruled unanimously that it was inadmissible.

FROM THE GROUNDS OF THE DECISION

The ECHR decision stated that in the lawsuit filed for the cancellation of the zoning plan change, the Administrative Court had issued a stay of execution on February 10, 2014, and that shortly thereafter, another zoning plan was put into effect.

The ECHR decision noted that the administrative court cancelled the first plan in 2015, and after the cancellation decision was overturned by the Council of State, it decided to reject the request for cancellation.

The ruling recalled that the application made by the applicants to the Constitutional Court was also rejected on the grounds that the applicants could not mention "a concrete impact on health, property, private life, and similar matters that they were directly exposed to due to the plans and projects implemented."

The decision stated that the applicants had made statements that they had "assigned themselves the mission of defending the public interest" due to the construction of the Presidential Complex on the Atatürk Forest Farm land, and used the following expression: "These statements are not sufficient to show that the proceedings before the administrative courts were directly decisive for civil rights and obligations in the sense of the right to a fair trial as specified in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

Stating that the application was incompatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in terms of subject matter, the decision recorded the following:

"The Court concludes that the application must be rejected in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 35 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court has unanimously decided that the application is inadmissible."