Events
Real person applicants Y.E.S.they are the children and heirs of. The fifth applicant is a legal entity established by the applicants. Y.E.S. He is a collector of cultural property registered in the Directorate (Directorate) of the Underwater Archaeological Museum. Y.E.S.there are over 300 cultural assets registered in the collection of.
Y.E.S.after the death of a natural person, the applicants established the Steiner Real Estate Investment and Consulting Limited Company (the fifth applicant / Company) in order to carry out collection activities. The Company started its collection activity under the supervision of the Directorate by obtaining a collection permit on 19/2/2014. Y.E.S.all cultural assets registered in the collection of have been transferred to the Company’s collection.
The Directorate has warned the Directorate that it is not possible to subject the immovable cultural assets recorded in the Company’s collection to the collection activity and that they should be handed over to the Directorate. 1. The applicants request the cancellation of this transaction. The lawsuit they filed in the Administrative Court (Court) was dismissed. In the justification of the decision; it has been stated that there is no way to qualify the pieces that become movable by breaking away from or leaving immovable cultural assets as movable cultural assets subject to collecting activity, otherwise acceptance will lead to the destruction of ancient artifacts and an effect that increases their trade. The appeal application of natural person applicants against this decision was rejected by the Regional Administrative Court, and the appeal application was rejected by the Council of State.
Claims
The applicants claimed that the right of ownership was violated due to the fact that the immovable cultural assets registered in the private collection were requested to be handed over to the museum for free.
Evaluation Of The Court
In the concrete case, it was stated that the immovable cultural assets registered in the applicant Company’s collection were recorded in the sehven inventory and an administrative procedure was established for their delivery to the museum.
When the Law No. 2863 on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets is examined, it is seen that it is not forbidden to subject both movable and immovable cultural assets to private ownership. It has been made possible to keep movable cultural property in private ownership under the supervision and supervision of the state provided that a certificate of collection has been obtained. In addition, Article 15 of the Law No. 2863. article 24 of the immovable cultural property act. and 25. in the articles, it is also possible to transfer the ownership of those deemed eligible for movable cultural assets to the public within the framework of the procedures and principles provided for in the said articles.
The works that are the subject of a concrete event, while they are actually part of immovable cultural assets, have somehow been torn or torn away from their originals. In this sense, it is strictly forbidden to register them in collections such as movable property for later than 11/3/2005. In terms of what was recorded in the collections before DEC date, transfers and sales between collectors were prohibited, as well as the public authorities were given the right to take them to the museum for free.
On the other hand, Article 4 of the Law No. 5835. article 8 of the provisional Law added to the Law No. 2863. article 11 It should be emphasized that immovable cultural property acquired by collectors in some way before 3/2005 and registered in the inventory book at the museum to which it is attached is not obliged to be transferred to museums in any case, and the public authorities have discretion in this regard.
The public authorities are integrators of immovable cultural assets and have caused the formation of a belief that pieces torn from them can be recorded in the inventory of private collectors with their own attitudes and behaviors. It is necessary to protect these trusts of people who acquire these cultural assets by relying on the legal situation caused by the inaction or even active contribution of public authorities.
Undoubtedly, this does not mean that the works that form part of immovable cultural assets cannot be transferred to public ownership. However, in order for them to be delivered to the museum without compensation, much stronger reasons are needed. In the concrete case, the public authorities could not give any other reason other than the need to protect them. Moreover, the public authorities did not claim that the applicant Company had not properly protected them and that they would have been better protected if they had been handed over to the museum.
4 of the Law No. 5835. article 8 of the provisional Law added to the Law No. 2863. even the article does not automatically eliminate the property situation arising in relation to what was recorded in the inventories of collectors before 11/3/2005, and gives the administration discretion in this regard. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the Court’s justification that the immovable cultural property of the legislation does not provide for the possibility of collecting activity as relevant and sufficient.
In these circumstances, it has not been concluded that a vehicle that imposes a heavy burden on the applicant in the form of delivering immovable cultural assets included in the Company’s collection to the museum without compensation is the lightest intervention to achieve the purpose of preserving the cultural property. In this case, it was assessed that the interference with the applicant’s right to property did not meet the requirement criterion.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the applicant’s right of ownership has been violated in terms of the works registered in the Company’s collection on the grounds described.