Building a road across a titled property, incorporating a plot into a school garden or erecting an energy transmission line on land directly affects the right of ownership. The administration carrying out a public service does not thereby gain the right to use the property free of charge. Where a permanent interference takes place before the expropriation procedure has been completed, the owner may, depending on the circumstances, seek to prevent the encroachment or, in exchange for the transfer of ownership, claim the value of the property.
The outcome of a de facto expropriation action (kamulaştırmasız fiilî el atma davası) depends on the date of the interference, the area it covers, the administration responsible and the legal protection requested. The property value, ecrimisil for past use and interest are assessed separately. Winning the case also does not mean that the collection steps are completed automatically.
This article addresses the actual taking of privately owned property in Türkiye within the framework of the legislation and decisions reviewed as of October 13, 2026. In particular, the new Provisional Article 20 on allocations made before 1956, the 2026 interest case law and the annulment decision on the exemption from providing security for suspension of enforcement have been taken into account.
What is de facto expropriation without formal proceedings?
De facto expropriation without formal proceedings is the permanent use of privately owned property by the administration for a public service, without carrying out a lawful expropriation or completing the necessary steps. Roads, parks, schools, water facilities, canals and energy transmission facilities are typical examples. The interference may cover the whole property, a part of it, or a use relating to an easement right. For the distinction between urgent expropriation and de facto expropriation, see the article Urgent Expropriation and Urgent Possession.
Article 35 of the Constitution protects the right of property, and Article 46 regulates the public-interest and compensation safeguards for expropriation. A factual use that begins without these safeguards being applied does not become lawful merely because it serves a public service. However, not every construction activity or damage caused by a neighbouring public facility falls within the same type of action.
How are permanent taking, temporary use and service-related damage distinguished?
A permanent road passing through a parcel differs from short-term storage during road works. Compensation or prevention of the interference may arise also in temporary use; however, it cannot be said that this is necessarily an acquisition requiring the full value of the property. The purpose and duration of the interference, the facilities on the property and the continuity of use are examined.
Where access becomes more difficult because the road level is changed without any entry onto the property, damage arising from the conduct of a public service may be involved. This distinction affects the competent judicial branch. The statement "the municipality caused damage" alone does not prove de facto expropriation; the area the municipality has used, from which date and in what manner, must be specified.
Does a public-service designation in the zoning plan count as de facto expropriation?
Where the parcel is only located in a school, road or park area under the zoning plan, and no actual use has begun, the issue is a different legal problem. The procedures, jurisdiction and cost rules for legal taking based on plan restrictions and for de facto taking based on physical interference must not be transferred to one another.
For example, a parcel designated as road in the plan may have one strip paved while the rest is left empty. In such a file, the measurement of the paved section and the legal status of the remaining part are examined separately. Bringing an action for the whole parcel under a single characterisation may lead to errors regarding value and jurisdiction.
Which rules apply depends on the date of the interference
The date on which the title was acquired and the date of the administration's interference are not the same. A person who has just bought a property may face a dispute over a road built many years earlier. The interference date to be taken as the basis is determined by evaluating aerial photographs, the opening records of the facility, tender files, municipal archives and witness statements together.
| Period of interference | Main provision to examine | Importance in the file |
|---|---|---|
| Actual allocation to public service up to October 8, 1956 | Provisional Article 20 of Law No. 2942 | Special limitations on being deemed expropriated and on claims |
| Takings between October 9, 1956 and November 4, 1983 | Provisional Article 6 | Settlement as a condition precedent to action, special value and collection rules |
| De facto takings after November 4, 1983 | Decisions on unification of case law and related current provisions | General value action; payment provisions such as Provisional Article 19 are examined separately |
What did the 2026 regulation introduce for allocations before 1956?
Provisional Article 20, added by Article 8 of Law No. 7588 dated July 2, 2026, lays down a special rule for properties actually allocated to public service, without expropriation procedures, up to October 8, 1956. Where the conditions in the law are met, the property is deemed expropriated in the name of the relevant administration as of the date of allocation. Construction of a facility or structure suited to the nature of the public service is accepted as de facto allocation.[1][2]
The article also provides that claims, including value claims raised after January 12, 1963, are not accepted, and that this rule applies also to pending actions. For this reason, relying solely on the former Law No. 221 or on the general statement that "there is no limitation period for value actions" is not sufficient.
However, the administration's statement that "this road is very old" does not by itself ensure the application of the new provision. It must be shown that the disputed area was actually allocated to public service by the stated date. A new strip obtained by widening an old road in 1990 cannot be placed in the same period by reference to the age of the first road. Overlaid maps and dated aerial photographs are therefore decisive.
Is conciliation mandatory for takings between 1956 and 1983?
For takings covered by Provisional Article 6, applying the conciliation procedure first is a condition precedent to action. The law provides that the invitation to negotiations must be issued within six months at the latest from the application or the administration's invitation, and that, if there is no legal or factual obstacle, the negotiations must be concluded within six months at the latest from the date of not joining the invitation. These are not a single period tied to the same starting point.[1]
If conciliation cannot be reached, the law provides a three-month time limit for bringing an action running from the drawing up of the record of disagreement. Whether the application was left unanswered, the owner was not invited to negotiate or no record was drawn up must be assessed separately; a time calculation cannot be made on the same date in every case. The application document, notification records and the negotiation record must be kept.
In this period, valuation requires the characteristics of the property at the date of taking to be taken into account, while the value at the date of the action is considered. The flat-rate court fee (maktu harç) and attorney's fee, as well as the special payment and attachment provisions, are also parts of the same regime. These provisions cannot be generalised to all interferences after 1983.
Must five years be waited after 1983?
For a de facto taking there is no general condition requiring a wait of five years, which relates to the zoning-plan restriction. The conciliation condition precedent under Provisional Article 6 also does not apply to post-1983 interferences merely because the administration is a party. Nevertheless, requesting archive and usage information in writing before filing the action makes it easier to identify the correct defendant and the scope of the claim.
For a value claim based on ownership, settled case law accepts that the ordinary statute of limitations for tort does not apply. However, this result does not mean that ecrimisil, special historical regimes and enforcement steps arising from a final judgment are independent of all time limits.[3]
Before which court and against whom is the action brought?
A value and transfer-of-ownership dispute based on de facto expropriation without formal proceedings is heard in civil courts before the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) at the place where the property is located. The mandatory rule on exclusive jurisdiction over rights in rem is observed. However, where only ecrimisil is claimed, the jurisdiction should not be determined automatically as if an action on a right in rem had been brought. The distinction between easement rights and the court in line-crossing cases is discussed separately in the article Energy Transmission Line and Pipeline Expropriation.
The defendant is the administration legally responsible for the interference. That a road lies within a municipal boundary does not mean that the district municipality is always the responsible party. The metropolitan municipality, the General Directorate of Highways, the water and sewerage administration or another public body may be involved. The ownership of the facility, its construction and operation records, handover protocols and the allocation of duties must be examined.
The administration's use of a contractor does not remove the examination of responsibility. The independent acts of the contractor outside the project must be distinguished from those of the administration that commissioned it. Naming as defendant a directorate without legal personality may also create a separate problem. Indeed, in the decision of the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi) dated January 9, 2025, naming the provincial directorate of national education rather than the responsible Ministry of National Education in the heading of the decision was one of the earlier grounds for reversal.[3]
In co-ownership, the claim for value is established, as a rule, according to the claimant's share. Inheritance, joint ownership and representation requirements are examined separately. If the property was acquired later, it should not be assumed that past ecrimisil claims automatically passed to the new owner; the holder's rights and any assignment of the claim must be investigated.
Is the value of the property claimed, or prevention of the interference?
The choice between protecting ownership and claiming value
The Decision for the Unification of Case Law dated May 16, 1956, No. E.1956/1, K.1956/6, accepts that the owner may request the prevention of the interference and, by accepting the factual situation, may also claim a sum in exchange for the transfer of ownership. The relevant part of that decision is also reproduced in the full text of the Court of Cassation decision of January 9, 2025 linked below.[3]
A value claim is not a money claim that leaves the land registry title unchanged. If it is accepted, the registration of the interfered portion in the name of the administration, or its removal depending on the circumstances such as road status, comes into question. In an interference of an easement nature, the assessment is made in accordance with the scope of the right.
Where prevention of the interference is sought, the condition of the existing facility, the scope of the interference and the conditions of legal protection are examined. The presence of a public facility does not by itself extinguish the right of ownership; equally, it cannot be asserted in advance that the facility will be removed in every file. Mutually incompatible claims should not be raised together, in an uncertain way, for the same section; the outcome sought must be clearly framed.
Claim amount and its increase during proceedings
The fact that the value is calculated by an expert does not automatically make each action an action for an indeterminate claim. The conditions in Article 107 of Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (HMK) must be considered, in particular whether the amount can be determined objectively when the action is filed and the nature of the claim. A partial action, an indeterminate claim and an amendment of the claim lead to different procedural consequences.
In particular, where an ecrimisil claim is increased, the increased portion may need separate examination regarding limitation. A petition stating only that "rights for the excess are reserved" does not result in the preservation of time limits for all monetary items. The amount, the ecrimisil period, the type and start date of interest should be shown separately.
How is compensation for de facto expropriation calculated?
Different valuation for plots and agricultural land
For plots, the value is compared with suitable sales comparables. The location of the comparable, the date of sale, its size, zoning status, access and infrastructure are evaluated. An online advertisement may be a starting point for research; however, the advertised price should not be accepted directly as the actual sale price without examining the title sale record and the terms of the transaction. For how the value is determined in ordinary expropriation, a comparison can be made with the article Determination of Expropriation Value and Registration Action.
For agricultural land, a net income approach is applied using factors such as crop pattern, yield, product price, production cost and capitalisation rate. Irrigated or non-irrigated character, official agricultural data and local conditions are important. The word "field" in the land registry alone does not end the valuation debate; the characteristics the property legally and actually carries are investigated.[1]
Structures, trees and other integral elements may be assessed separately, but the same element must not be counted twice. In comparing the zoning parcel with the cadastral parcel, differences in readjustment shares also need to be justified. Automatically deducting 45 percent from the value of every property is not a correct method.
Which date's value is taken?
For the general de facto expropriation value action, the value at the date of the action is what matters. In files under Provisional Article 6, the value at the date of the action and the characteristics at the date of taking are considered together. This distinction may significantly affect the outcome for properties whose zoning and infrastructure conditions have changed over the years.[1][3]
Where claims are consolidated or additional actions are brought, it must be evaluated which claim was raised at which date. The approach "the expert came to the site today, so today's market value is taken" is incorrect. The date of the on-site examination and the valuation date legally taken as the basis may differ.
If the remaining section cannot be used, can the value of the whole be claimed?
Building a road over one part may render the rest of the parcel unusable. However, not every partial interference requires payment for the entire parcel. The size, shape, access, usability under the zoning rules and economic integrity of the remaining area are examined technically. Complete unusability and a mere reduction in value may lead to different results.
Fifth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, June 17, 2025, E.2024/12963, K.2025/8948: In the earlier reversal decision, it was assessed that the 1,305.16 m² area left over from the section used as a road had become unusable because of its geometric condition and size, and it was requested that the value of this section be taken into account. The compensation judgment rendered in compliance with the reversal was affirmed. In the same decision, the appeal concerning ecrimisil was dismissed as inadmissible because of the monetary limit; this part must not be presented as an affirmance on the merits.[4]
In the case of an energy line, the value of the pylon site and the easement created by the line and the loss of value must be separated. It cannot be assumed that the full ownership value of every square metre crossed by the line will be paid.
Can ecrimisil be claimed, and for which period is it calculated?
Ecrimisil is compensation for the unlawful use of a property, arising when its conditions are met. The property value relates to the loss of ownership; ecrimisil relates to a past period of use. The fact that a public body does not earn commercial profit from the property is not, by itself, a ground that removes compensation for use.
How is the five-year limitation applied?
In settled case law, a five-year limitation period running backwards from the date of the action applies to ecrimisil. This period should not be understood as a single period that starts from the first day of the administration's interference and ends all use compensation five years later. The period claimed, the filing of the action, any increased amount and the limitation defence are examined together.[5]
Fifth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, November 9, 2020, E.2020/3054, K.2020/9584: The ecrimisil portion reserved in the first action and later claimed through a supplementary action was assessed. Because a timely limitation defence had been raised, it was accepted that the period five years before the date of the supplementary action must be examined separately, and the judgment was reversed. It thus becomes concrete that the first action did not automatically protect the period for all reserved claims.[5]
For plots, rental comparables matching the nature of the use are needed; for agricultural land, product and net income data for the relevant periods are needed. Multiplying today's monthly rent by all past years ignores differences between periods. Nor should it be assumed that the property had the same income potential in every year.
Does ecrimisil continue after a value action has been filed?
Fifth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, January 9, 2025, E.2024/6318, K.2025/348: The owners' filing of the value action on December 9, 2009 was assessed in the light of their consent to the transfer of ownership to the administration. Following a reversal, the partial acceptance decision, under which ecrimisil cannot be claimed for the period after that date, was affirmed.[3]
The practical result of this decision is that the ecrimisil calculation cannot necessarily be continued until the date on which the value is paid or the title is changed. For example, if the value action was filed in 2022 and payment was made in 2026, it cannot be said that the four years in between automatically form a new ecrimisil period. The monetary effect of the delay is assessed in terms of interest and, where conditions exist, through other legal routes. The earlier action and judgment must be added to the file, and the periods must not be overlapped.
Which interest applies to compensation for de facto expropriation without formal proceedings?
What does the 2026 Court of Cassation decision say?
Fifth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, May 20, 2026, E.2025/18008, K.2026/9522 accepted that, in a dispute concerning de facto taking after 1983, instead of statutory interest from the date of the action, the highest interest provided for public receivables under the last paragraph of Article 46 of the Constitution must be applied. By correcting the interest expression in the judgment, the decision was affirmed.[6]
For this reason, the old statement that "statutory interest always applies until finality" should not be used as a current general rule. When a claim for interest is formulated, the subject and date of this decision, the scope of the claim, the stage of the file and the special provisions that apply must be considered together.
The decision does not automatically change all previously finalised judgments. At the enforcement stage, the type of interest set out in the court judgment cannot be unilaterally converted into another type. Likewise, the high-interest rule for ecrimisil receivables and property value receivables should not be transferred automatically.
What does the Constitutional Court's annulment on statutory interest cover?
Constitutional Court (AYM), June 27, 2024, E.2024/4, K.2024/129, annulled the fourth sentence, which provided for statutory interest on instalment payments under the first paragraph of Provisional Article 19. The decision was published in the Official Gazette on December 9, 2024. The Court found it unconstitutional to apply statutory interest to these receivables despite the high-interest guarantee in Article 46 of the Constitution. The annulment does not mean that all payment provisions of the article have been removed.[7]
Changing interest rates must be applied to the relevant periods; the principal, the start date and the payments made must be shown separately. Applying a fixed percentage to all years, or automatically running compound interest, is incorrect. If there is a claim for loss exceeding interest, its legal basis, proof and relationship to items already decided must be established separately.
How should the expert report and documents be prepared?
The file should not be limited to the land registry record and a few photographs. The court must be able to verify the location, date and economic effect of the interference. The following documents answer different questions:
| Document or inspection | Question it clarifies |
|---|---|
| Current and valid land registry record, cadastral sheet | Right holder, share, relationship between old and new parcels |
| Surveyor's sketch and on-site measurement | Section used, remaining area, extent of the facility |
| Dated aerial photograph, project and construction records | Dates of the first interference and of later expansions |
| Expropriation, payment, surrender and transfer documents | Legal basis of the interference and responsible administration |
| Comparable sales, rental contracts, agricultural data | Separate calculation of value and ecrimisil |
The administration may argue that a valid expropriation was carried out, the price was paid, a voluntary surrender exists, the wrong body was named as defendant, or the interference is earlier. Each of these defences must be examined on the basis of the documents. A public-interest decision alone does not prove that the whole expropriation process has been completed; yet existing registration and payment documents should not be disregarded either.
An objection to an expert report should not consist merely of the sentence "the price is low". Errors such as wrong comparables, measurement errors, overlooking irrigated farming, failure to evaluate the remaining section or an incorrect valuation date should be clearly shown. Under Article 281 of HMK, the two-week objection period running from notification of the report must be observed; where conditions exist, a request for an additional period must be made in time.[9]
How are fees, attorney's fees and litigation costs determined?
In actions within the scope of Provisional Article 6, a flat-rate court fee and attorney's fee are provided for. For de facto expropriation after 1983, the practice concerning proportional court fees and attorney's fees must be considered. Applying the flat-rate fee provision in Supplementary Article 4 to all de facto takings is incorrect. The May 2026 interest decision also preserved, in this respect, the provision applying a proportional court fee and attorney's fee to post-1983 interferences.[1][6]
Sections of the value and ecrimisil claims that are rejected, dismissal for lack of standing (husumet) and other consequences of the action may affect the cost calculation differently. The fee agreement with one's attorney and the attorney's fee awarded by the court against the other party are not the same. Expert, on-site examination and notification costs also form part of the budget. Concrete amounts should be calculated under the tariffs and legislation in force on the date of the transaction and the decision.
How is compensation collected after the court decision?
Written payment request and enforcement proceedings
After the decision, the awarded value, interest, costs and attorney's fee items must be separated. For decisions within the scope of Supplementary Article 4, the claimant or their counsel must notify the administration in writing of the bank account number, and a payment period of thirty days applies. The date on which the notification arrives must be proved; when preparing enforcement proceedings, the nature of the judgment and the special provisions to be applied must be checked.[1]
The two generalisations "nothing can be done if the administration has appealed to the regional court of appeal (istinaf)" and "all decisions are enforced immediately and unconditionally" are both misleading. The monetary and in rem provisions of the judgment, the requirement of finality, special period provisions and any decision on suspension of enforcement are examined separately. Even a final value judgment does not automatically result in payment into a bank account.
Are budget and instalment provisions the same in every file?
Claims within the scope of Provisional Article 6 are subject to special budget, instalment and attachment provisions. In addition, Provisional Article 19 contains a separate budget and instalment arrangement for files arising from interferences between November 4, 1983 and July 28, 2021 that fall within the payment scope specified in that article. For this reason, it cannot be said that "there is no special payment rule in any file after 1983".[1]
However, an attachment prohibition for one period cannot automatically be carried over to another period. The inattachability of public property, the legal status of the administration and other relevant laws are examined separately. Nor does the administration's mere claim of budget insufficiency grant an indefinite right not to pay in every dispute.
How did the 2026 Constitutional Court decision change the security exemption?
Constitutional Court (AYM), May 13, 2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/106, annulled the second paragraph of Supplementary Article 4 of Law No. 2942 with respect to compensation actions brought because of de facto expropriation without formal proceedings. The decision, published in the Official Gazette No. 33333 dated August 7, 2026, concerns the administration's failure to provide security when it requested suspension of enforcement on the basis of that provision.[8]
The annulment has no deferred effective date. However, the decision does not remove all the security provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law or other exemptions. It therefore cannot be concluded that every public body will always deposit security in every file. The fact that the annulled special provision can no longer be relied on for an exemption is assessed together with the other regulations.
Conclusion
In a de facto expropriation action, a sound assessment begins by establishing the location and date of the interference. A claim directed at the correct administration must be supported by the land registry history, measurement, use and valuation data. The loss in the remaining part of the parcel, compensation for past use and interest must be calculated separately.
As of 2026, three headings in particular require current review: Provisional Article 20 on allocations before 1956, the new decisions on the interest applicable to compensation for de facto taking, and the annulment of the security exemption in collection. Litigation strategy should cover not only the amount the court will award, but also the transfer of ownership and how the decision will be collected.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it enough for the municipality to run a road through my titled plot for me to file a lawsuit?
Factual use is an important starting point; however, it must be examined whether there was a valid expropriation, a payment or a voluntary surrender. The party responsible for the road and the area used must also be determined. The fact that the title stands in your name does not replace the whole legal review.
Must one wait five years in a de facto expropriation action?
There is no general five-year waiting condition for de facto expropriation. It should not be confused with the periods relating to zoning-plan restrictions. For older interferences from 1956 to 1983 under Provisional Article 6, there is a conciliation and special action process.
Can compensation be claimed today for property taken years ago?
The general approach to a compensation claim based on ownership is that no limitation period applies. However, the date of the interference must be investigated without fail. In particular, for allocations before 1956, Provisional Article 20 may change the outcome, and for the period 1956–1983, Provisional Article 6 may do so as well.
Can the value of the property and lost past rent be claimed together?
Where the conditions are met, the value and ecrimisil may be claimed together. The period of ecrimisil, the limitation and the income calculation must be shown separately. It cannot be assumed that ecrimisil automatically continues for the period after the value action.
If only part of my plot was used, can I also claim the value of the remaining part?
The unusability or loss of value of the remaining part must be demonstrated technically. Not every partial interference requires payment for the whole plot. The surveyor's sketch, the zoning conditions and the expert assessment are important.
Is statutory interest applied to compensation for de facto expropriation?
In the Court of Cassation decision of May 20, 2026, it was accepted that for de facto taking after 1983 the highest interest provided for public receivables applies from the date of the action. The claim, the special provisions and the stage of the file are examined separately, and old final judgments do not change automatically.
Did the 2026 Constitutional Court decision make it possible to attach all public property?
No. The decision annulled the special security exemption in Supplementary Article 4 for the group of actions it identifies. The attachment provisions on public property and the other exemptions are assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
Legislation and decisions
- Expropriation Law No. 2942 (Kamulaştırma Kanunu), official current text: in particular Articles 11–12, 15, 29, Supplementary Article 4, Provisional Articles 6, 19 and 20. Assessment date: October 13, 2026.
- Law No. 7588, text as adopted by the TBMM, adopted July 2, 2026, Article 8; Provisional Article 20 added to Law No. 2942.
- Fifth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, January 9, 2025, E.2024/6318, K.2025/348, full text. The text also reproduces the relevant parts of the YİBBGK decisions of May 16, 1956, E.1956/1, K.1956/6, and E.1954/1, K.1956/7.
- Fifth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, June 17, 2025, E.2024/12963, K.2025/8948, full text: remaining section, encumbrances (takyidat) and assessment of a separate legal remedy.
- Fifth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, November 9, 2020, E.2020/3054, K.2020/9584, full text: five-year limitation for ecrimisil, supplementary action, and reference to Unification of Case Law Decision No. 29/10 dated May 25, 1938.
- Fifth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, May 20, 2026, E.2025/18008, K.2026/9522, full text: affirmed with correction regarding interest for de facto expropriation.
- Constitutional Court, June 27, 2024, E.2024/4, K.2024/129, official decision PDF, Official Gazette: December 9, 2024, No. 32747; in particular paragraphs 24–26 and the operative part.
- Constitutional Court, May 13, 2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/106, official decision PDF, Official Gazette: August 7, 2026, No. 33333; in particular the operative part.
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure, official text: in particular Articles 12, 26, 107 and 281; and Law No. 4721 Turkish Civil Code, official text, Articles 683 and 995.
Articles consulted on the subject
- Av. Gökhan Bilgin, "Expropriation and Legal Taking" (Kamulaştırma-Hukuki El Atma): for the distinction between de facto and legal taking and the historical debate.
- Liman Hukuk, "Interest Applicable in De Facto Expropriation Actions" (Kamulaştırmasız El Atma Davalarında Uygulanması Gereken Faiz): for the development of the interest debate; the periodic rates and practical explanations in that article are not carried over here as the current general rule.
The decisions were assessed from the full texts at the links; automatic summaries by third-party websites were not used in place of the reasoning of the decisions. This article is for general information only; the documents of the specific file and the transaction dates must be examined separately.