Events
The applicant’s supervisor is S.T. in 1955, he purchased a share of a public bank with a nominal value of 100 TL.
Since its establishment, the Bank has been involved in significant capital increases many times, of which shareholders have been granted priority rights, except for those made between 1984 and 2000, when the bank was subject to the Legislative Decree Dec. 233 on State-Owned Enterprises. After no shareholder exercised this right, all capital increase fees were paid by the Treasury. in the capital increases carried out between 1984 and 2000, the partners were not granted priority rights according to the law, and all the dec in this period were paid by the Treasury.
27 of the Law No. 5615. provisional article 9 added to the Law No. 4603 on Ziraat Bank of the Republic of Turkey, Halk Bankası Anonim Şirketi of Turkey and Real Estate Bank of Turkey Anonim Şirketi No. 4603. according to the article, 100 TL shares of nominal value belonging to shareholders other than the Privatization Administration have been completed into 1 new Turkish lira (YTL) 1 share of nominal value. S.T.the shares valued at TL 100 have become valued at YTL 1 in accordance with this Law.
S.T.the shares of the company were transferred to the applicant in 2008. The applicant filed a lawsuit requesting that the share price of TL 100 be adapted in proportion to the current capital of the bank and that the transaction related to the determination of the value of the share as TL 1 be canceled and determined in accordance with the current fair value. As a result of the trial, the court dismissed the case. The applicant appealed against the decision; the Court of Cassation upheld the court’s decision.
The applicant also applied for a decision correction method, but the applicant’s request for a decision correction was rejected.
Claims
The applicant claimed that his right of ownership had been violated due to the fact that the nominal value of the shares belonging to the public bank had not been updated and had been reduced by law.
Evaluation Of The Court
It should be recognized that public transactions that reduce the economic value of property or lead to the deprivation of the hoped-for economic benefit from the property constitute an interference with the right to property.
The applicant basically complained that the value of his share had not been updated and that its nominal value had been reduced from TRY 100 to TRY 1.
In a concrete case, the ratio of the Treasury’s shares increased due to the fact that all capital increase fees of the bank were paid by the Treasury. However, the fact that the applicant’s share has decreased proportionally does not mean that its value has also decreased. Although the total value of the bank whose capital has been increased has increased, the value of the applicant’s share has not decreased. On the other hand, although the total availability and value of the bank increased as a result of the capital increases in value, it is inconceivable that the partners who did not participate in the capital increase and did not pay the price will benefit from this increase. Article 35 of the Constitution. the ownership right regulated in the article does not guarantee that the share ratio of the company’s shareholders will remain constant or that all shareholders – even if they do not pay a price for the capital raised at a price – will become shareholders at the same rate. Otherwise, the partners who did not participate in the capital increase will become rich for no reason. Therefore, it has been assessed that there is no basis for the applicant’s claim that the share should be updated and adapted according to the company’s current capital situation.
The fact that the partners could not participate in the capital increases dec 1984-2000, when the bank was included in the status of a state-owned enterprise, affected the use of the applicant’s muris’s partnership rights. However, all capital increases made during this period were paid by the Treasury and the applicant did not make any payments. Therefore, the claim that the applicant should benefit from the economic value added to the company’s existence by the capital increases made between 1984 and 2000 at the rate of the applicant’s share dec 1955 is also unfounded.
Finally, it is understood that the main reason why the 100 TL shares belonging to the applicant were completed into 1 share valued at 1 YTL was that six zeros were discarded from the Turkish lira. The legislator has converted Turkish lira-traded shares into YTL. During this conversion process, the applicant was not harmed, but rather acted in favor of the applicant. The applicant’s shares with a value of TL 100 were increased from TRY 0.0001 to TRY 1 by the provision of the law mentioned. Therefore, it is not possible for the applicant’s stock to be economically damaged due to this transaction. In this case, it was concluded that although the applicant had used all the procedural facilities granted to him, he could not substantiate that the right to property had been interfered with by the public authorities.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the claim that the right to property has been violated on the grounds described is inadmissible because it clearly lacks a basis.