The Turkish Constitutional Court recently considered which date
should be used to assess a property's expropriation value. It
held that for price determination lawsuits, it is unconstitutional
to determine a property's expropriation value based its
location and conditions at the actual expropriation date, since the
property's qualities may change between the expropriation date
and the lawsuit. Therefore, it held that the phrase "...on the
expropriation date..." in the Expropriation Law numbered 2942
("Expropriation Law") should be struck out because it
violated property rights under Articles 35 and 46 of the
In the case at hand, the Court of First Instance filed a
complaint to the Constitutional Court, claiming the Expropriation
Law violated Articles 35 (property rights) and 46 (expropriation)
of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the phrase "...on the
expropriation date..." (used to determine expropriation value)
violated constitutional property rights and expropriation rules
granted under Article 35 and 46. The court held that during
expropriations, the period when the administration can bring a
lawsuit is ambiguous and the qualities of a land may change between
the expropriation date and the lawsuit. Therefore, for price
determination lawsuits, it is unconstitutional to determine a
property's expropriation value based its location and
conditions at the expropriation date.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court held that legislation should
take into account the time difference between the administrative
and judiciary processes when determining the expropriation value.
Therefore, legislators must remove the phrase"...on the
expropriation date..."to accurately determine the date for
assessing a property's expropriation value.
However, the Constitutional Court held that the phrase about not
considering the "increase in value and revenue to be generated
in the future considering the future use" does not violate the
Constitution. It reasoned that property rights protected by Article
35 of the Constitution do not include changes that could occur for
immovable property in the future or future expectations that have
not yet occurred yet. Therefore, when determining expropriation
value, increases caused by zoning and service providers, or
possible future revenue, should not be taken into account.
The Constitutional Court's decision (dated 26 May 2016, with
application number 2015/55 and decision number 2016/45) was
published in Official Gazette number 29756 on 28 June 2016. Please
see this link for the full text of the
Constitutional Court's decision (only available in
Information first published in the
MA | Gazette, a fortnightly legal update newsletter produced by
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Back in Issue 05 of IQ, we examined the decision in Yam Seng PTE Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd and looked at whether a general obligation of good faith could be implied into contracts made in accordance with English law.
Ian Mitchell, a partner in the Anthony Gold leasehold services team, answers why investors like to buy freehold properties.
Some comments from our readers The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable I often find critical information not available elsewhere As in-house counsel, Mondaqs service is of great value
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think youve read our Disclaimer).