VZCZCXYZ0013
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIT #0620/01 3531642
ZNR UUUUU ZZH (CCY AD0ED1A3 MSI5570-695)
P 181642Z DEC 08 ZDS
FM AMCONSUL ISTANBUL
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8661
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS ISTANBUL 000620 
 
SIPDIS 
 
C O R R E C T E D C O P Y (ADDED PARA MARKINGS PARA 1 AND 2) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL AA OSCE TU
SUBJECT: ARMENIAN FOUNDATIONS WIN RULING FROM EUROPEAN 
COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 
 
REF: ANKARA 326 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary. On December 16 the European Court of Human 
Rights issued two judgments against Turkey for violating 
the property rights of two Armenian foundations in cases 
pertaining to properties they formerly owned.  In both 
cases, the court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 1 
of Protocol Number 1 of the European Convention on Human 
Rights.  The two decisions are important for the future of 
minority foundation property. One involves compensation 
for property that had been transferred to a third party and 
the other pertains to the Foundations Law's 2008 amendment 
permitting the return of confiscated properties to the 
foundations as long as they had not been transferred to a 
third party. The GOT has a three month window in which to 
contest the decision, but is expected to return one of the 
properties and pay compensation for the other.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) The "Samatya Surp Kevork Armenian Church, School and 
Cemetery Foundation" and the "Yedikule Surp Pirgic Armenian 
Hospital Foundation" brought cases against Turkey for the 
seizure of foundation property.  Both foundations in 
question were established by Ottoman Imperial Decree in 
1832 and are recognized by current Turkish Foundations 
law.  In both instances Turkish courts had ruled that the 
foundations' charters did not give them the right to 
acquire immovable property - such as apartments or houses. 
On December 17, Minister of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, 
Burak Ozugergin, said the issue was very legally complicated 
and the MFA was still determining whether or not they would 
apply to the ECHR Grand Chamber to appeal the decision. 
 
Compensation for Third Party Transfer 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶3.  (SBU) In the case brought by Yedikule Surp Pirgic 
Armenian Hospital Foundation against the GOT, the lawyer 
for the foundation, Diran Bakar, explained that the 
property consisting of an apartment and garage had been 
donated to the foundation in 1962.  Upon donation, he said, 
the property title was then registered in the name of the 
foundation.  However, a Supreme Court (Yargitay) ruling in 
1974 determined that minority foundations could not acquire 
property beyond that listed on their 1936 registry and a 
1998 decision by Beyoglu's court of first instance demanded 
the annulment of the foundation's title to the property. 
According to the ECHR decision notes, in May 2001, the 
court returned the property title to the original owner who 
was long since deceased.  Her heirs sold the property to 
another party in January 2007 for 426,000 Euros.  The ECHR 
unanimously agreed that Turkey must pay the foundation 
275,000 euros for the transferred property. 
 
Potential Return of Seized Property 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The properties in the case brought by the Samatya 
Surp Kevork Armenian Church, School and Cemetery Foundation 
against Turkey are three contiguous houses donated to the 
foundation in 1955.  However, following the 1974 Yargitay 
ruling, the General Directorate of Foundations brought a 
case against the foundation and in 1998 cancelled the 
registration and returned the title to the deceased 
original owner.  The ECHR ruled that the GOT must either 
return the property or pay 600,000 euros compensation to 
the foundation.  The foundation lawyer Setrak Davuthan told 
us he believes the GOT would return the property rather 
than pay compensation.  He noted that the new Foundations 
Law provides for the return of confiscated properties to 
their foundation owners as long as they had not been 
transferred to a third person. He said that the ECHR 
provides yet another legal leg on which such a GOT decision 
could rest. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Comment:  The judgment continues a trend set by 
other minority foundations who have taken their cases to 
the ECHR. Many of these cases were initially tried in the 
Turkish court system and taken to the ECHR prior to the 
amendment of the Foundations Law in February 2008 (Ref A). 
The amended Foundations Law provides for the return of 
seized properties not sold to third parties, such as in the 
case of the Samatya Foundation, but does not appear to 
provide for compensation for properties sold to third 
parties. The ECHR decisions set a precedent for the return 
of properties using the Turkish court system and may prompt 
the Turkish Government to consider further amending the 
Foundations Law to include the compensation for properties 
sold to third parties. End Comment. 
 
WIENER