Events
The immovable property belonging to the applicant, which is a community foundation, has been expropriated -some partially, some completely – by the municipality for the purpose of road construction. However, after the expropriation process, it was not possible to use it as a road due to the fact that it was determined that the real estate in question remained within the boundaries of the urban site. A result was not obtained from the applications made by the municipality that carried out the expropriation process to the Protection Board for the next time, and road works in this region could not be started as of the date of the individual application. Therefore, it has not been possible to use real estate as a road.
Although the court of first instance dismissed the case on the grounds of time-out in the title cancellation and registration case filed by the Applicant as part of the exercise of the right of return, the Court of Cassation examined the merits of the case and rejected the appeal request. The Court of Cassation accepted that all the applications made by the municipality to the Protection Board and the decisions of the board were transactions for the purpose of expropriation and concluded that the conditions for the return of real estate were not established. The applicant’s request for correction of the decision was also rejected by the Court of Cassation.
Claims
The applicant claimed that his property right was violated due to the fact that the unused real estate was not returned for the purpose of expropriation.
Evaluation Of The Court
The fact that legal actions and savings are made against the purpose of the public interest for the expropriated real estate and that these real estate are not used for the purpose of the public interest after a reasonable period of time constitutes an immeasurable interference with the right to property. Accordingly, the non-allocation of expropriated real estate for the purpose of public dec leads to the fact that the owner of the property will not benefit from the surplus value created by the property in the intervening period and will not be expropriated based on the actual value of the real estate.
In the concrete case, the real estate expropriated by the municipality was not used for the purpose of expropriation, nor was it allocated for any other purpose for the public good. The municipality’s approval of the Supreme Court in the decision of his correspondence with the public interest in real property to be used for the purpose of the expropriation of immovable property protection board is intended to be used whether or not accepted by stating that the return conditions are also contained in the file, and during the proceedings in the court of first instance examined the documents that are presented to the court of First Instance of the real estate to be used as the path is not taking any step was observed. In fact, it has also been understood from the decisions of the Conservation Board that it is not possible to widen the road in the area where the real estate is located.
However, it has not been claimed that the expropriated real estate was allocated for an off-road purpose. In these conditions, it has been evaluated that it is not possible to accept the correspondence made by the municipality and the decisions of the Protection Board as a transaction established for the purpose of expropriation of real estate.
On the other hand, the fact that correspondence has been made and is being made with the Protection Board regarding real estate does not constitute a justified reason for the fact that real estate that appears to have legal obstacles to its use for the purpose of expropriation very soon after the date of expropriation will continue to be held by the municipality without being allocated for the purpose of public benefit. Public authorities are obliged to act in accordance with the purpose of expropriation or in the public interest within a period that can be considered reasonable in terms of each real estate they have expropriated. Otherwise, it will pave the way for some of the real estate subject to expropriation transactions not to be used in accordance with the purpose of expropriation or in the public interest, and it will be inevitable that these real estate will be transferred only for the purpose of generating income.
As a result, it is clear that the applicant’s real estate has not been used for any other purpose suitable for the purpose of expropriation or useful to the public since the date of expropriation. In this context, considering the length of the period since the expropriation date and the increase in the value of the real estate in question during this period, it was evaluated that the applicant was deprived of the surplus value created by the property and that the way of restitution of the real estate was not taken. Therefore, in the concrete case, although twenty years had passed since the date of the case, the purpose of the public interest was not realized due to the fact that the real estate was not used for the purpose of expropriation, and considering the increase in the value of the real estate during this period, it was seen that the expropriation price paid to the applicant remained far from reflecting the real value of the real estate.Since the way of compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant has also not been taken, the intervention imposes an excessive and unusual burden on the applicant, it has been concluded that the fair balance between the public interest and the protection of the applicant’s right to property has decayed against the applicant.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the right to property has been violated on the grounds described.