The Objectionable Rule
In the rule subject to appeal, it is stipulated that decisions on cases of assets whose amount or value does not exceed three thousand Turkish liras are final.
Application Justification
In summary, in the application decision; in order to determine the true value of the real estate of the right holder who claims that his real estate is valued by the court at a lower value than its real value, he should have the opportunity to raise his claims in this direction by applying the law, stating that this is also necessary in terms of protecting the right to property, and the rule is contrary to the Constitution.
Evaluation of the Court
As a rule, an appeal method is prescribed in the judicial system against the final decisions of courts of first instance. The fact that the path of the law is closed against the decision of the court of first instance issued against an individual creates a limitation on the right to request that the provision be supervised by another court. In this regard, the rule stipulating that decisions on cases of determination of the expropriation price that do not exceed a certain amount are final imposes a restriction on the right to request an audit of the provision by another court.
Article 13 of the Constitution. according to the article, the regulations that impose restrictions on the right to request an audit of the provision must be made by law, in accordance with the reasons for the restriction provided for in the Constitution and in moderation. In this context, the existence of a legal regulation aimed at limiting the right to request an audit of the provision is not sufficient and the legal rules should be specific, achievable and predictable arrangements that do not allow arbitrariness.
The phrases “Amount or value …” contained in the rule essentially dec the value of the assets that are the subject of dispute between the parties. However, in cases of determination of the expropriation price, the basis of the dispute is the judicial determination of what the value of the property is, in other words, the determination of the value of the real estate by the court. Therefore, the cases of determination of the expropriation price are distinguished in this aspect from other types of property litigation in which people can demonstrate the subject of a claim or dispute with a certain amount or value. From this point of view, since the claims containing a certain amount or value do not constitute the subject of these cases, it is not possible to take a criterion such as the inadmissible part of the claim put forward in the case as the basis for determining the certainty limit of the decision.
On the other hand, it is also clear that in cases of determining the expropriation price, the limit of certainty of the decision in terms of the immovable property, in other words, the amount ruled in its favor by the court is not important in determining whether it is appealable or not. As a matter of fact, due to the nature of the dispute, the main basis of the real estate owner’s request for appeal is the claim that this amount, determined by the court as the expropriation price, is incorrect and does not reflect the real value of the real estate.
In this respect, it is seen that the rules do not clearly and unambiguously determine which criterion will be used as the basis for calculating the certainty limit of decisions on expropriation price determination cases, so as not to give any hesitation. Therefore, it was concluded that the rule limiting the right to request an audit of the provision does not carry the requirement of legality.
On the other hand, Article 46 of the Constitution. in the first paragraph of the article, it is stipulated that expropriation should be carried out on the condition that the real value of the real estate is paid and the real value of the real estate should be expropriated in accordance with the provision of this article 35 of the Constitution. it is also a requirement of the right of ownership guaranteed in the article.
The uncertainty of the rule as to which criterion will be taken as the basis for calculating the certainty limit of decisions made in relation to expropriation price determination cases is of a nature that may lead to the deprivation of the real value of an individual’s real estate based on differences in interpretation and evaluation in practice.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the rule is contrary to the Constitution on the grounds described and has been annulled.
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clicking here