The dispute is related to the request for payment of 200.000 TL compensation for the damage allegedly. Incurred due to the non-expropriation of the immovable property. Which remained in the public area in the zoning plan for more than 25 years. Since there is no action (actual seizure) taken. By the administration towards the immovable subject to the dispute. It is not possible to characterise the transaction established. Upon the plaintiff’s application as a “preliminary decision” within the scope of Article 13 of the Law No. 2577. The dispute. Did not arise from an administrative action, but from the restriction imposed. On the immovable property in the zoning plan. In the case in question. The plaintiff claimed that he could not fully benefit from. His property due to the restriction imposed. On the immovable as a result. Of the planning of the immovable as a public area in the zoning plan for more than 25 years, and requested. The payment of a compensation amount for his immovable.
The Court should look beyond the face of the case and treat the dispute as a claim for compensation. Although the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the transaction regarding the rejection of the compensation application;
As summarised above, considering the previous stages of the case. Especially the expropriation case and the application. To the European Court of Human Rights. The subject of this case is the restriction of property rights. Therefore, in the face of the fact that the case is related to the compensation. Of the immovable. Due to the inability to use the immovable. While the case should be handled and concluded. As a compensation case. Without examining the reasons for filing the case beyond. The apparent situation and the reasons for filing the case. By characterizing the case as a cancellation case. There was no legal accuracy in the decision of the administrative court regarding. The rejection of the case (in terms of procedure) on the grounds that the transaction. Subject to the lawsuit was not a final and mandatory transaction (Council of State 6. Chamber – Decision: 2014/213).
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking