|
The Constitutional Court in its decision number 2024/232 dated 25 December 2024 (“Decision”) annulled paragraph 14 of Article 10 of the Expropriation Law No. 2942 (“Law”) that relates to the administrative court’s suspension of execution in the case of an expropriation procedure, and the provision stating that an administrative lawsuit in this regard shall be considered a prejudicial matter. Additionally, the Constitutional Court annulled paragraph 6 of Article 14, which states that the results of annulment and rectification of material errors lawsuits will not affect those who do not file a lawsuit, for being against the Constitution. The decision was published in the Official Gazette number 32854 dated 27 March 2025. In the application to the Constitutional Court, it was claimed that Articles 10/14 and 14/6 of Law No. 2942 were in violation of Articles 13, 35, and 36 of the Constitution. In its evaluation, the Constitutional Court based its decision on the following reasons:
According to the rule established in Article 10/14 of the Law, in the case where no suspension of execution decision is made regarding the expropriation procedure, the legal process may continue with the determination of the expropriation fee and the registration of the immovable in the name of the administration by the civil court. Under Article 10/8 of the Law, the registration decision made by the civil court is final, and Article 25/1 also states that ownership will be transferred to the administration with the registration decision made by the court. In this situation, even if the expropriation procedure is found to be unlawful and annulled, the determination and registration decision would remain valid, and the ownership of the immovable would have already passed to the administration. Furthermore, if the suspension of execution decision is not given within a reasonable time or if the suspension request is rejected, it is also possible to annul the expropriation procedure by accepting the lawsuit. The Constitutional Court stated that, in this rule, no guarantee is provided for the judicial review of the expropriation decision’s legality by administrative courts before the process is finalized. As such, it fails to provide effective judicial control over the expropriation decision and does not meet the constitutional obligation to establish necessary and sufficient mechanisms for raising claims regarding violations of property rights. For these reasons, the rule was found to be in violation of Articles 35 and 40 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court found that, although the expropriation procedure is legally cancelled with the annulment decision of the judiciary, the rule in Article 14/6 of the Law continues to affect the ownership of other property owners, even though they did not file a lawsuit. The Constitutional Court stated that the annulled expropriation procedure remains valid for stakeholders who did not file a lawsuit, which violates constitutional and legal conditions. The rule, therefore, allows the expropriation decision, which has been annulled, to have legal effects on those who did not challenge it, resulting in a limitation on property rights that lacks legitimate constitutional grounds. As a result, Article 14/6 of the Law was annulled for being in violation of Articles 13, 35, and 46 of the Constitution. Effects and Application of the Decision With this Decision, the part of Article 10/14 of the Law, which states “…if an expropriation procedure is challenged by the rightful owners in administrative courts and a suspension of execution decision is made by the administrative courts, the court shall consider the lawsuit in administrative jurisdiction as a prejudicial matter, and act accordingly,” was ruled unconstitutional and annulled. Additionally, the remaining part of Article 10/14 of the Law was annulled in accordance with Article 43/4 of Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Procedure of the Constitutional Court, as it would lead to the annulment of specific provisions of the Law, resulting in non-application of other provisions or the entire Law. Article 14/6 of the Law was annulled for being unconstitutional. You can access the full text of the decision via this link. |
Constitutional Court Annuls the Article 10/14 and 14/6 of the Expropriation Law dated 4/11/1983 and numbered 2942
22 Apr 2025
