General Assembly of Law 2014/1405 E. , 2016/1059 K.
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance
At the end of the trial between the parties for the case “Collection of the Decommissioned real estate without expropriation”; Antalya 8. 15.05.2012 day and 2011/504 E, which were issued by the Court of First Instance on the procedural refusal of the case due to the judicial way.-2012/196 K. upon request of the deputy plaintiffs to examine the decision on appeal, the Court of Cassation 5. The day of 22.01.2013 of the Legal Department and 2012/20155 E.-2013/663 K. by his numbered decision;
(…The case concerns the request to collect the cost of real estate confiscated without expropriation.
Since the administrative judiciary is in charge, the court decided that the court was out of commission by betting; the decision was appealed by the plaintiffs’ deputies.
In the examination, it was determined that the real estate subject to litigation was reserved as a Sunday place in the zoning plan and was not confiscated.
On 15.12.2010 similar to that of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court Law Day and 2010/5 – 662/651 in accordance with the decision of the zoning plan in roads, schools, Yesil field, like Sunday, even though the price have not been undertaken in places dedicated to public service will be awarded to Al overseeing the decision that after 10 zoning law numbered 3194. article According to the provision of the supervisor, the immovable property must be paid within 5 years from the date of finalization of the 1/1000-scale implementation zoning plan due to the fact that the defendant Municipality has not fulfilled the expropriation duty in accordance with the purpose of separation and the owner’s property right has been indefinitely restricted.
On the other hand, unless there is a decision of the Dispute Tribunal issued in relation to a file, the place of hearing of this case related to the same real estate is judicial jurisdiction in accordance with the decision of 16.05.1956 days and 1/6 to Merge the case law.
In this respect, the work on the basis of the immovable entered in the zoning plan roads, schools, Yesil field Sunday for the first time to the public after the date of the review and ozgulendi according to the results of the conducted research should establish the required provision disregarding the court of deciding gorevsizlig,
it has not been seen correctly….)
at the end of the re-trial, the court resisted the previous decision by overturning the grounds and returning the file to its place.
DECISION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF JURISPRUDENCE
After it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the examination by the General Assembly of the Law and the papers in the file were read, the requirement was discussed:
The case concerns the request to collect the cost of real estate confiscated without expropriation.
Public Administration Development Plan made by the defendant to the court using the power of real estate with unilateral Sunday will set aside a place immovable, and it does not compensate for, and this action zararlandirici action of the administration and the law on administrative procedure 2/1-full in accordance with a judicial case will be the subject of b, due to the administrative jurisdiction of the solution of the dispute between the parties, the rejection decision from judicial review of the case due to the procedures given the title of special counsel on appeal the plaintiffs on the grounds that the judgment is described in the section above dairec corrupted, the previous decision was resisted by the court.
The decision to resist was appealed by the deputy plaintiffs.
The General Board of the resistance path from the front of the conflict with the law; the nature of the actual seizure of the administration move premises plaintiffs are involved in an action are not yet available, although the development plan will be opened as a place of Sunday due to the separation, collection of hand thrown immovable kamulastirmasiz the price of requesting a judicial or administrative case at the point it will be taken in the place of jurisdiction will be collected.
A number of restrictions are imposed on the rights of persons to real estate in places allocated for public services by the zoning plan, which is an administrative procedure, and the zoning plan, the administration that does not go to expropriation or clearing, makes the owners’ rights to save on real estate unavailable for an indefinite period of time. In this case, the compensation lawsuits to be filed should be considered in the administrative jurisdiction.
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court of Cassation has 30.10.2013 days and 2013/5-603 E., 2013/1503 K. the same principle is adopted in the numbered hymn.
When looking at this description in the framework of a concrete case, claimants are involved District of Antalya konyaalti, Arapsuyu, registered in the name of development plan Sunday 1 3768 parcel immovable whole quarter left the place, but applicable according to the zoning plan, immovable, are the places will be subject to private ownership and it is understood that the subject matter of this case about the de facto administration of the immovable does not take a hand, although based on zoning restrictions, Legal has to take a hand.
As mentioned above, in cases that will be filed against such claims, the local court’s decision to resist is in place, since the administrative jurisdiction is in place, and the decision to resist must be upheld.
S O N U Ç: It was unanimously decided on 16.11.2016 that the decision to resist should be UPHELD for the reasons described above, with the rejection of the appeals of the plaintiffs’ attorney, and that there is no need to take any other fees other than the necessary appeal fee has been received in advance.
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clicking here