Ecrimisil (Unlawful Occupation) Compensation Actions: Requirements, Calculation, Statute of Limitations and Court of Cassation Decisions

Compensation for unjust occupation (ecrimisil) is the compensation for unlawful occupation that a rights holder may claim where movable or immovable property is used in bad faith without any lawful justification. The claim rests mainly on Article 995 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), together with the provisions on possession and compensation and the case law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) interpreting them. In co-ownership in shares or joint ownership, the condition of prevention of use (intifadan men) and its exceptions; whether the property is a residence, business premises, a building plot or a field; and the period of occupation and comparable income data directly affect the outcome. This private-law action should not be confused with the administrative compensation for unjust occupation procedure applied by the administration under Article 75 of Law No. 2886. [1] [2] [3]

What Is Compensation for Unjust Occupation, and What Legal Bases Does It Rest On?

Compensation for unjust occupation is the compensation that a bad-faith possessor who has no authority to use property, or who continues to use it although an authority to use that existed at the outset has ended, must pay to the rights holder because of the unlawful use. Although in practice it mostly arises in relation to immovable property, it may also be discussed in relation to movables where the requirements based on possession and entitlement are met. However, claims for the return of the movable itself, loss of value, lost fruits and loss of use do not turn into the same calculation item in every case.

Article 995 of Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 holds a possessor who is not in good faith liable to compensate for the damage caused by unlawfully withholding the thing he or she is obliged to return, and for the fruits obtained or neglected to be obtained. Articles 993 and 994 of the same Code regulate the legal position of a good-faith possessor differently. Accordingly, the fact that someone lives in a property does not, alone and automatically, amount to bad-faith occupation. The existence, scope and duration of the right of use and the date on which it ended must be clarified. [1]

In the unification-of-case-law decision of the Court of Cassation of March 8, 1950, E. 1950/22, K. 1950/4, and in subsequent case law, it has been emphasized that unlawful occupation cannot be regarded as a lease agreement formed by the mutual will of the parties, and that it is in the nature of a tortious act whose resulting damage must be made good. For this reason, compensation for unjust occupation does not rest on the same legal ground as the rent debt claimed from a tenant. Indeed, a tenant’s failure to pay rent and the occupation of property by a person who has never had any right of use are different disputes. [4] [5]

The distinction between compensation for unjust occupation, a rent claim and prevention of encroachment

A rent claim is a contractual claim arising from an existing and valid lease relationship. Compensation for unjust occupation, by contrast, is compensation for unlawful occupation linked to the absence or termination of a lawful ground for use. An action for prevention of encroachment aims to stop an existing interference; compensation for unjust occupation concerns the monetary consequence of unlawful use that has taken place in the past. These may be claimed together where the requirements are met. Cancellation and re-registration of title, dissolution of co-ownership (ortaklığın giderilmesi), eviction, restoration to the original condition, demolition and compensation for damage, on the other hand, are subject to different substantive and procedural requirements.

Compensation for unjust occupation for past periods cannot be imposed on a person occupying property under a valid lease agreement merely because ownership has changed hands. After a sale, the lease relationship is assessed separately under the Turkish Code of Obligations and special provisions. Likewise, where a permission for free use, an intra-family arrangement of use, the consent of the heirs or a valid usufruct is asserted, the date of unlawful occupation cannot be determined without investigating that legal basis.

What Are the Substantive Requirements for Claiming Compensation for Unjust Occupation?

Infringement of a protectable right and of the authority to use

The plaintiff’s superior right to use or benefit from the property must be made concrete. A land registry record, a usufruct, status as an heir or a protectable position of possession may form the basis of the claim. Merely being the owner is not sufficient proof in every dispute: it must also be shown that the defendant had no legal ground during the period for which compensation for unjust occupation is claimed.

Actual use, withholding or benefiting from the fruits

It is established which property or part of it the defendant used, from which date to which date, and for what purpose. Occupation of a residence, operation of a shop, setting up a storage area or car park on a building plot, growing crops on agricultural land and earning rental income from the property each require different calculation data. Where the occupation covers only a certain number of square meters, it is not correct to make the calculation for the whole property without investigating the actual and economic effect.

Bad faith and the absence of a justified reason

Under TMK Article 3, good faith does not protect a person who fails to exercise the required care. Nevertheless, bad faith and the start of unlawful use are established from the documents of the specific case. The user may rely on the express permission of the owner or the heirs, a contract, an existing court decision, a de facto division or another valid authority. The fact that such a ground existed at the outset does not mean that it will always continue. Service of the formal notice (ihtar), notice withdrawing permission, an eviction decision, the termination of a usage agreement and the parties’ statements are important in determining the date of this transition.

Compensable loss of use, or the link between fruits and benefit

The economic basis of private-law compensation for unjust occupation consists of elements such as the possibility of using the property normally, the opportunity to benefit from comparable rental income, the fruits produced and the benefit not obtained. It is not additionally required in every file that a lease agreement has actually been concluded or that there has been an attempt to let the property to someone else. However, purely hypothetical high-earnings calculations that are inconsistent with the nature of the property or lack concrete data cannot be accepted either. The Court of Cassation applies its approach concerning a minimum of the comparable rental value and whether a higher lost benefit can be proven legally and factually together with the particular features of the specific case. [5] [6]

Who Can File an Action for Compensation for Unjust Occupation, and Who Is the Defendant?

The registered owner, the holder of a limited real right conferring the authority to benefit from the property and the holder of a protectable right may claim compensation for unjust occupation, depending on the specific legal nature of the claim. The authority of the usufructuary may differ in his or her relationship with the bare owner; for this reason, to whom the compensation belongs is assessed according to the period in which the rights over the property existed. The land registry record, the certificate of inheritance, the contract, the record establishing the usufruct and other documents showing a legal right of benefit are at the center of the initial review.

The defendant may be the person or persons maintaining unlawful actual control. Without determining who actually uses the property and who earns income from it, joint liability cannot be imposed on all family members on the basis of an address record or kinship alone. Where there is more than one occupier, the periods of occupation, the concerted conduct and the basis of liability must be shown separately.

Can a new owner claim compensation for unjust occupation for past periods?

As a rule, to whom the claim belongs depends on who held the entitlement in the relevant period. A person who later buys the property is not deemed to have automatically acquired the compensation for the previous owner’s period merely by buying the property; if it is asserted that the past claim was separately assigned, the validity and scope of the assignment are examined. The new owner’s claim for the subsequent period based on his or her own right is assessed separately. Land registration, the contract and the date of transfer are the basis of proof.

Compensation for Unjust Occupation Between Co-Owners Under Co-Ownership in Shares

In co-ownership in shares, all co-owners have rights over the property arising from the law. For this reason, one co-owner’s use of the common property is not accepted as bad-faith occupation as against the other co-owners without any further examination. By contrast, where one co-owner excludes another from benefiting from the property or its income and the other necessary conditions are met, the excluded co-owner may claim compensation for unjust occupation within the scope of his or her own right.

The important distinction accepted by the Court of Cassation is whether there is a place used without dispute. If there is a place corresponding to the co-owner’s own share that he or she uses without dispute, a mere claim of using less in terms of surface area may not in every case be a ground for compensation for unjust occupation. Whether a de facto division or settled pattern of use exists, whether it binds all co-owners, and whether income was nevertheless lost must be established through an on-site examination and evidence. In its decision of June 24, 2025, E. 2024/4960, K. 2025/3222, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) reversed a judgment rendered without sufficiently determining, for numerous properties, which parcel was the subject of the action and whether there was a part the plaintiff could use. [7]

What Is the Condition of Prevention of Use, and When Is It Not Required?

Prevention of use means notifying the other co-owner of a co-owner’s wish to benefit from the common property or its income and legally establishing that he or she has been prevented from benefiting. In general practice, as between co-owners, the condition of prevention of use must have arisen before the period for which compensation for unjust occupation is claimed. The fact of prevention does not necessarily have to be proven by a notarial formal notice; witnesses, correspondence, an earlier action, enforcement steps and other lawful evidence may be examined. Nevertheless, a clear demand and notification recorded in a document reduce disputes over dates. [8]

In judicial practice, the main situations that may constitute an exception are as follows:

• The property being a place that yields natural fruits, such as a vineyard, orchard or agricultural land, or having a nature and use that provides civil fruits through being let;
• The occupying co-owner claiming an exclusive right over the whole property and denying the co-ownership of the others;
• The existence of a valid arrangement of use among the co-owners determining the place each of them will use;
• The plaintiff having previously resorted to an action for prevention of encroachment, dissolution of co-ownership or compensation for unjust occupation, or to enforcement proceedings, concerning the property in question;
• The benefits of natural fruits or of an independently income-generating business being taken unilaterally;
• The public-property nature of the property requiring an assessment of the exception within the scope of the relevant judicial approach.

These headings are not automatic grounds for winning. For example, the fact that an apartment could theoretically be let is not the same fact as its actually generating rental income or the plaintiff’s co-ownership rights being denied. For the exception to apply, the nature of the property, the concrete use, the income obtained and the defendant’s conduct must be proven. In its decision of May 14, 2024, E. 2022/6381, K. 2024/2575, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber restated the rule of prevention of use and its exceptions. [8]

Is sending a formal notice always mandatory?

No. A notarial formal notice is a useful step that strengthens proof in many files; however, it cannot be said that prevention of use can be established in all cases only by a notarial notice. Existing exceptions, the parties’ earlier actions, messages, the arrangement of use and facts of actual obstruction are assessed together. The notice should specify the identity of the property, the share ratio, the right of use or income claimed, the period granted, the objection to unlawful use and the addressee of the notice.

Compensation for Unjust Occupation Under Joint Ownership and Among Heirs

With the opening of the succession, immovables included in the estate may become subject to joint ownership among the heirs. Compensation for unjust occupation may be claimed, under certain conditions, against an heir who prevents the other heirs from using the property. The absolute approach that no heir may file an action alone is not correct. The Court of Cassation has rendered decisions accepting that, because of the divisible nature of compensation for unjust occupation, an heir may file an action alone for the claim corresponding to his or her own share of the inheritance. By contrast, the procedure for binding dispositions on behalf of the estate as a whole, claims concerning ownership, or acts requiring authority of representation is not the same. [9]

The certificate of inheritance, the land registry records in the name of the deceased or transferred to the heirs, the previous manner of use, rental and agricultural income records, and when the succession relationship began must be examined. If the heirs’ long-standing consent, care or an intra-family usage agreement is asserted, the start of the occupation cannot be taken to be the date of death without assessing this defense.

Related articles: When One Heir Lives in an Inherited Home; Dissolution of Co-Ownership of Inherited Real Estate.

How Is Compensation for Unjust Occupation Calculated?

The basic method on which the calculation of compensation for unjust occupation rests varies according to the nature of the property:

The amount of compensation for unjust occupation is determined through an examination by a specialist court-appointed expert suited to the economic nature of the property. It is not correct in every file to apply a standard percentage, a fixed ratio of the market sale value, or the current rent mechanically to past years. The court must obtain a reasoned report under HMK Article 266 et seq. that shows the supporting documents and is open to review by the parties and the judge. Where necessary, expertise in surveying, construction, real estate valuation, agriculture and accounting is obtained from different fields. [6] [10]

The comparable rent method for residences, business premises, building plots and storage areas

For the first claim period, the physical condition of the property at that date, its location, access, zoning status, usage capacity and size, and the contracts for genuinely comparable places in the immediate vicinity are taken as the basis. Together with the comparable contracts submitted by the parties, an ex officio investigation is carried out where necessary. Price differences arising from the comparable property being newer, having a different floor area, being close to the sea or a main road, its type of use, building age and state of renovation must be justified.

For subsequent years, the realistic amount found for the first period is reassessed using periodic economic data. Court of Cassation decisions contain principles concerning the producer price index (ÜFE) increase criterion and that it should not produce a downward result; this is not an automatic acceptance that the property actually yields the same increase in income every year. New period data, regional rents and the changing features of the specific property must be assessed. Rough backward extrapolation from the current rent at the date of the action is a methodological error that may be the subject of reversal decisions by the Court of Cassation. [6]

The crop income and crop rotation method for agricultural land

In fields, vineyards and orchards, the measure of unlawful use is often not comparable residential rent. Data are needed on the crops grown in the relevant years or that could be grown under the region’s normal agricultural conditions, crop rotation (münavebe), fallow, irrigation status, yield per decare, production costs and periodic sale prices. Data from the provincial or district directorate of agriculture and forestry and the records of the relevant crop market should form the objective basis of the report.

In its decision of May 15, 2025, E. 2024/4795, K. 2025/2661, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber held unlawful the use of a building plot/rent valuation method for a place in the nature of a field and the failure to determine whether the property was irrigated or dry farmland. It emphasized that a crop income calculation had to be made with a new on-site examination and a suitable panel of experts. [10]

Separating the occupied area, the period and the share in the calculation

The court and the expert must make the calculation separately for each property and each period, showing the area encroached upon, the date range claimed, the rights holder’s share, the actual occupier and any payments previously made. Where there is more than one defendant, each person’s period of use and the basis of his or her legal liability are investigated separately. Rent payments and earlier judgments on compensation for unjust occupation that could lead to double collection are taken into account.

Sample calculation approach

In a hypothetical example constructed solely to show the difference in method, if the documented comparable annual value of use of a residence in the first year in dispute is 120,000 Turkish lira (TL), the amount for subsequent years is calculated separately, taking into account the market rates of those years, periodic increases and the condition of the property. If the plaintiff holds only a 1/4 entitlement, the amount corresponding to his or her own share is assessed separately according to the scope of the authority to claim. This example is not compensation for unjust occupation assessed by a court, a fixed annual increase or an actual file amount. The same sample method cannot be used for agricultural land; crop income is investigated separately.

What Evidence Matters in an Action for Compensation for Unjust Occupation?

The purpose of the case file is not only to show ownership, but to establish the absence of a right of use, the actual occupation, its duration, the start of bad faith and the basis of the compensation to be calculated. Useful groups of documents are:

• Current and historical land registry records, encumbrances, cadastral map sheets, zoning and plotting (aplikasyon) documents;
• The certificate of inheritance (veraset ilamı), usufruct documents and records showing the share and joint ownership relationship;
• Lease, permission to use, allocation, sale, transfer and usage agreements, and notices of termination;
• Notarial formal notices, service endorsements, correspondence, earlier court and enforcement files;
• On-site examination, photographs, satellite images, building-use and municipal/agency findings and, where necessary, lawfully obtained camera footage;
• Tax or rent collection documents, bank receipts (dekont), comparable contracts and actual business income;
• Letters from the directorate of agriculture and forestry, crop prices, yield, irrigation, crop rotation and production expenses;
• Witness statements and the parties’ earlier statements and, if any, a sketch showing the parts used;
• Expert reports, objections to the reports and additional reports clarifying contradictions.

It should be borne in mind in particular that evidence concerning the date of prevention of use and evidence concerning the start date of the occupation are not the same. Use that began with permission may later become unlawful. Where a party relies on care, a family relationship or a lease, it may not be sufficient for the plaintiff to submit only the title deed.

The Five-Year Statute of Limitations and the Period Limit for Compensation for Unjust Occupation

Under the decision of the Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu) of May 25, 1938, E. 1937/29, K. 1938/10 and subsequent practice, claims for compensation for unjust occupation are subject to a five-year statute of limitations. In practice, the claim is assessed as covering at most the five-year period counting back from the date of the action; special circumstances of suspension or interruption and whether the defense has been raised in the specific case are also taken into account. The statute of limitations is a defense that the defendant must raise; it is not to be confused with a time limit for bringing an action (hak düşürücü süre). [6] [10] [11]

These five years do not mean that no action can be filed where the property has been occupied for more than five years. While a limitation risk arises for older periods, the requirements of the claim may be assessed for the last five-year period that has elapsed. A probable occupation fee that may arise after the filing of the action cannot be calculated and added to the judgment as if it were an already accrued claim; a separate claim or a procedurally suitable step may be needed for the new period that has elapsed. In its decision of June 30, 2020, E. 2018/14130, K. 2020/4242, the Court of Cassation 8th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi) specifically noted this distinction for probable damage after the action. [11]

The Start of Interest and the Current Interest Regime in Actions for Compensation for Unjust Occupation

Interest may be claimed on claims for compensation for unjust occupation accrued by period. In judicial practice, it is possible to claim interest from the end of each occupation period; however, this must be consistent with the form of the claim in the statement of claim, the fact of default and the applicable interest regime. The court is bound by the claim. It is not correct to fix the start of interest automatically at the first day of the occupation or, in every file, at the date of the action.

Article 1 of Law No. 3095 was amended by Article 10 of Law No. 7589 dated July 16, 2026, and the new calculation system entered into force as of July 31, 2026. Statutory interest is now calculated, under the conditions in the law, on the basis of certain rediscount rates of the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası); for the second half of the year, an additional update is made where the conditions are met. For this reason, in actions after 2026 it is not correct to apply a single old annual interest rate to all periods. The date range, the type of interest, default and the application of the law in time must also be examined. [12]

Court with Subject-Matter and Territorial Jurisdiction in Actions for Compensation for Unjust Occupation

The comparison below shows the first procedural distinction to be made before filing an action:

Under private law, in an independent action for compensation for unjust occupation based on the right of ownership, the civil court of first instance has subject-matter jurisdiction as a rule (HMK Article 2). However, if there is a genuine lease relationship between the parties, a special provision on subject-matter jurisdiction or a different legal characterization, subject-matter jurisdiction must be reassessed. A claim arising from rent or a lease agreement does not fall within the jurisdiction of the civil court of first instance merely by being wrongly labeled compensation for unjust occupation. The decision of the Court of Cassation 8th Civil Chamber of May 18, 2021, E. 2020/129, K. 2021/4138 emphasized the jurisdiction of the civil court of first instance in a dispute based on unlawful occupation. [13]

In an action for compensation for unjust occupation that is purely a monetary claim, the general rules on territorial jurisdiction (HMK Article 6) and, depending on the nature of the case, HMK Article 16 on torts may be considered. However, where the action is filed together with prevention of encroachment, the rule of exclusive jurisdiction concerning real rights in an immovable and its possession (HMK Article 12) becomes important depending on the scope of the action. Accordingly, the sentence “in actions for compensation for unjust occupation, the court of the defendant’s domicile always has jurisdiction” is incomplete. The decision of the Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi) of May 20, 2024, E. 2024/2831, K. 2024/6073 examined the application of HMK Article 12(3) for more than one property. [14]

Is Mediation Mandatory in Actions for Compensation for Unjust Occupation?

Because a mere independent claim for compensation for unjust occupation arising from ownership is not expressly listed in Article 18/B of Law No. 6325, it cannot be said that every action for compensation for unjust occupation is automatically subject to mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. However, since September 1, 2023, certain disputes arising from a lease relationship, dissolution of co-ownership, condominium ownership and neighbor law fall within the scope of mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. Even if the claim is asserted under the name of compensation for unjust occupation, if the real legal relationship is a lease or a dispute within another covered category, the procedural prerequisite must be investigated separately. Where different legal claims appear together in a single petition, the effect of the procedural prerequisite must also be assessed separately with regard to each claim and to subject-matter jurisdiction. [15]

For private-law claims that the parties can freely dispose of, voluntary mediation or settlement negotiations may be possible. However, the formal and enforceability requirements of agreements affecting the right of ownership, the transfer of the property or the dissolution of co-ownership must be observed separately.

2026 Procedural Change: The Partial Action Regime Instead of the Indeterminate Claim

At the time of filing, the amount of compensation for unjust occupation often cannot be calculated precisely without an expert examination. However, as of July 31, 2026, the action for an indeterminate claim under HMK Article 107 has been repealed. Under HMK Article 109(4), introduced by the same amendment, where part of a claim has been sued, the claim may be increased once within the same action, until the end of the investigation phase (tahkikat), without being subject to the prohibition on expanding the claim. The relevant provision also provides that, for the increased portion, the statute of limitations is deemed interrupted on the date of the action. [16]

Nevertheless, the transitional provision in the law provides that the previous system continues to apply to actions for an indeterminate claim filed before the repeal. Accordingly, the procedural rule in a file opened in 2025 should not be carried over unchanged to an action to be newly filed in October 2026. The plaintiff’s choice of the type of action, the initial amount claimed, the value for court fee purposes, the end of the investigation phase and the one-time right to increase the claim are part of the specific procedural strategy.

The fact that past Court of Cassation decisions on compensation for unjust occupation relied on HMK Article 107 does not mean that this provision is still in force today. The assessments in this case law concerning expert calculation must be kept separate from the applicability of the now-repealed procedural provision.

Can Compensation for Unjust Occupation, Prevention of Encroachment, Demolition and Restoration to the Original Condition Be Claimed Together?

Yes; where the substantive and procedural conditions exist, prevention of a continuing interference with a property, compensation for unjust occupation arising from unlawful occupation, removal of an unlawful building or installation, restoration to the original condition and separately provable heads of damage may be discussed in the same action or in procedurally appropriate separate actions. However, the same damage is not compensated twice. Compensation for unjust occupation as consideration for past use is conceptually separate from the repair of physical damage caused to the property; each head requires a claim, a legal ground and evidence.

Asserting these claims together affects the assessment of the total value for court fee purposes, subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, the scope of the on-site examination, the expertise of the court-appointed experts, litigation costs and the thresholds for legal remedies. In its decision of February 5, 2026, E. 2025/2593, K. 2026/606, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber reversed the judgment because of the relationship between the claims for prevention of encroachment and compensation for unjust occupation in terms of the value in dispute and review on appeal (istinaf). [17]

The Administration’s Compensation for Unjust Occupation Under Article 75 of Law No. 2886 Is Different

With respect to Treasury (Hazine) property, places under the authority and disposal of the State and other public immovables listed in the law, the occupation findings, assessment of compensation for unjust occupation and eviction procedures carried out by the administration under Article 75 of the State Tender Law No. 2886 (Devlet İhale Kanunu) are based on a regime different from the compensation for unjust occupation awarded by the ordinary courts between an owner and a bad-faith possessor. In administrative compensation for unjust occupation within the scope of the law, it is not required that the administration has suffered damage because of the occupation or that the unauthorized occupier (fuzuli şagil) is at fault. For the period not exceeding five years counting back from the date of the finding, special procedures such as assessment by a commission apply. [3] [18]

The means of recourse and time limits against the administration’s notice of compensation for unjust occupation (ecrimisil ihbarnamesi), correction notice, payment and eviction procedures must be examined separately under the relevant special legislation. The explanations on the five-year statute of limitations and on the civil court of first instance given for private-law compensation for unjust occupation cannot be applied to all of these procedures. The time limit for administrative litigation and the conditions for payment and reduction may vary depending on the type of procedure and the notification.

Related articles: Objecting to Municipal and Treasury Ecrimisil Notices; Eviction from Municipal Property; Action for De Facto Expropriation.

Risks That Stand Out in Specific Disputes

Use of an inherited residence by a single heir

The heir may be using the property with the deceased’s permission or with the agreement of the other heirs. It cannot be presumed that bad faith arises automatically from the date of death. The conditions for the prevention of use of the other heirs, another place used in proportion to the share, rental income and earlier actions between the heirs are investigated.

Failure by the former owner or a relative to vacate a purchased property

Payment of the sale price, the date of registration, the undertaking to deliver, any existing lease or permission to use, a formal notice sent later and the period in which the new owner acquired the right of disposal are distinguished. If the defendant asserts a fiduciary transfer or a valid contract, the documents are assessed; not every assertion automatically rules out unlawful occupation.

Cultivation of agricultural land by a neighbor or co-owner

In the on-site examination, the parcel boundaries, the actual size of the cultivated area, the type of crop, crop rotation and which period was spent in whose use are determined. The list of properties in the statement of claim and the parcels examined by the expert must match exactly.

Commercial use of business premises or a building plot

For a car park, storage area, antenna/base station, temporary structure, billboard or business activity, the actual footprint of the occupation and the area of economic benefit are investigated separately. The entire gross turnover a company earns from its activity is not directly a claim for compensation for unjust occupation. The comparable value of use, the actual area, any proven higher loss of profit and the risk of double compensation are examined.

Remaining in a property after family relationships, divorce or de facto separation

The start of compensation for unjust occupation should not be accepted without investigating the family-law relationship on which a spouse’s or family member’s use is based, the family residence character of the property, protection/allocation orders, ownership, permission to use and the termination of these. Special claims arising from family law may be subject to a separate legal characterization and to separate rules of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Legal Review Before and During the Action

1. Review of rights and title: The property, the share, the usufruct, the estate, the parties to the action and any transfer dates are determined.
2. Investigation of the basis of use: Lease, free permission, de facto division, allocation, family relationship, an earlier decision or an administrative act are examined.
3. Period of occupation and prevention of use: The start of bad faith and of the prevention condition is determined through notifications and evidence; exceptions are assessed separately.
4. Evidence and valuation plan: The rent or crop income method according to the nature of the property; requests for comparables, an on-site examination and official data are prepared.
5. Time-limit and procedure check: The statute of limitations, the scope of mediation, subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, court fees, the type of action and the 2026 changes are checked.
6. Claim and interest: The period accrued up to the date of the action, the share, any earlier payments, claims for interest from the end of each period and the risk of double collection are separated.
7. Review of the expert report: The report’s conformity with concrete comparables, official data, the methodology and each period is examined; a reasoned objection is prepared for incomplete or contradictory calculations.

Equally important defenses also exist for the defendant: the basis of the right to use, a permission granted, good faith, de facto division, a place the plaintiff already uses, an incorrect occupation period, an incorrect share ratio, the lack of objective comparables, earlier payments and the statute of limitations defense. The amount claimed should not be treated as accepted without a defense being made; the methodological flaws of the expert report should be shown with concrete documents.

How Does Court of Cassation Case Law Affect the Outcome of Actions for Compensation for Unjust Occupation?

Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, June 24, 2025, E. 2024/4960, K. 2025/3222 — For numerous properties between co-owners, it is necessary to have it clarified which parcels the claim covers and to determine the actual use and the place the plaintiff could benefit from; a judgment cannot be based on an abstract and contradictory expert calculation. [7]

Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, May 15, 2025, E. 2024/4795, K. 2025/2661 — A report based on the building plot/rent method is not sufficient for agricultural land. A new examination is required with official agricultural data, crop income, irrigation and crop rotation conditions. [10]

Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, June 20, 2023, E. 2023/2572, K. 2023/3473 — It was explained that, in calculating compensation for unjust occupation, the comparable rent method for building plots and buildings and the crop income method for agricultural land must be based on objective and verifiable data. [6]

Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber, May 20, 2024, E. 2024/2831, K. 2024/6073 — In an action for compensation for unjust occupation filed together with prevention of encroachment, the jurisdictional relationship as regards the place where the property is located under HMK Article 12(3) was assessed. [14]

Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, February 5, 2026, E. 2025/2593, K. 2026/606 — Where claims for prevention of encroachment and compensation for unjust occupation are asserted together, the relationship between the value in dispute and review by way of legal remedy cannot be resolved incorrectly. [17]

Each of these decisions concerns different material facts and a different type of action. The application of the repealed HMK Article 107 in an old decision cannot be carried over automatically to the current procedural regime; the decisions’ explanations concerning substantive law and the calculation method may be assessed separately.

Related articles: Rights in a Home Jointly Registered to Spouses; Objecting to an Expert Report in a Civil Action; Statute of Limitations and Time Limits for Bringing an Action.

Conclusion

The outcome of an action for compensation for unjust occupation depends not only on whom the property belongs to, but on the legal ground on which and the time at which the use began, the date on which bad faith arose, whether prevention of use was required between co-owners, and the objective method by which the value of use claimed was calculated. Particularly in inheritance and co-ownership disputes, de facto division and exclusion from income; for agricultural land, the crop calculation and the comparable rent method; and private-law compensation for unjust occupation and administrative compensation for unjust occupation must not be confused with one another.

In actions to be filed in 2026, the repeal of HMK Article 107, the procedure for increasing the claim under Article 109(4) and the changed interest regime of Law No. 3095 should also be addressed in the initial plan of the action. For sound proceedings, the legal basis, the past period, the evidence, the calculation method, interest and the procedural claims should be built consistently with one another.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a formal notice mandatory in an action for compensation for unjust occupation?

Not in every case. A notarial formal notice is strong evidence, particularly in proving prevention of use between co-owners; however, in some exceptions prevention of use may not be required, and the fact of prevention may also be proven by other evidence. Notifying the end of use that began with permission may, in turn, be important for proving the date of unlawful occupation.

Can a co-owner always claim five years of compensation for unjust occupation from another co-owner?

No. The five-year statute of limitations does not replace substantive conditions such as prevention of use and unlawful use. The place the plaintiff uses without dispute, de facto division and exceptions are investigated.

Can one of the heirs file an action for compensation for unjust occupation without consulting the others?

The Court of Cassation has rendered decisions accepting that, under joint ownership, an heir may file an action alone for the divisible claim for compensation for unjust occupation corresponding to his or her own share of the inheritance. Nevertheless, in other claims directed at the estate as a whole, representation and party status are assessed differently.

Is compensation for unjust occupation the same as a rent claim?

No. A rent claim is a contractual fee for use; compensation for unjust occupation is compensation for bad-faith occupation without a lawful ground for use. The existence of a lease relationship may change subject-matter jurisdiction, mediation and the calculation method.

What can be done if the amount of compensation for unjust occupation cannot be calculated precisely when filing?

After July 31, 2026, HMK Article 107 is not in force for new actions. The partial action and one-time claim increase regime under HMK Article 109(4) should be assessed together with court fees, the timing of the investigation phase and the effect on the statute of limitations.

When does interest on compensation for unjust occupation start?

Interest may be claimed from the ends of the periods, depending on the claim and the legal conditions. However, the starting point must be justified according to the facts and the type of action. The provisions of Law No. 3095 amended in 2026 should be taken into account.

Which court has subject-matter jurisdiction in an action for compensation for unjust occupation?

For independent private-law compensation for unjust occupation based on the right of ownership, the civil court of first instance has subject-matter jurisdiction as a rule. If the dispute arises from a lease relationship or there is a special provision on subject-matter jurisdiction, the result may differ.

Does the court of the place where the property is located always have territorial jurisdiction over a claim for compensation for unjust occupation?

No. For compensation for unjust occupation that is purely a monetary claim, general and tort jurisdiction may come into play. In an action filed together with prevention of encroachment, the exclusive jurisdiction rule of HMK Article 12 is also of particular importance.

Is compensation for unjust occupation for a field calculated like residential rent?

Generally not. For agricultural land, it should be assessed on the basis of the crop and income method, official yields and prices, irrigation, crop rotation, fallow and expenses.

Is the fee for use after the action is filed automatically claimed in the same action?

No. With regard to compensation for unjust occupation, a future fee for use that has not yet accrued cannot be awarded as if it were a past claim. The procedural options for a claim arising for the subsequent period are examined separately.

Is the same action filed against a notice of compensation for unjust occupation sent by the Treasury?

No. Notices of administrative compensation for unjust occupation and eviction procedures based on Article 75 of Law No. 2886 are subject to a separate administrative regime; the competent authority for recourse and the time limits are assessed according to the type of procedure.

Can compensation for unjust occupation and prevention of encroachment be claimed together?

Yes, they can be claimed where the conditions are met. However, the effect of the two claims on the value in dispute, subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, court fees, court-appointed experts and legal remedies must be calculated separately; the same damage must not be compensated twice.

Sources and legal bases

1. Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu), Articles 3, 6, 683, 701–703, 993–995; Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı), Legislation and Case Law Program (Mevzuat ve İçtihat Programı).
2. Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi), June 20, 2023, E. 2023/2572, K. 2023/3473 (nature of compensation for unjust occupation and calculation method).
3. State Tender Law No. 2886 (Devlet İhale Kanunu), Article 75.
4. Unification-of-case-law decision of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararı), March 8, 1950, E. 1950/22, K. 1950/4; the nature of the decision is reported in the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision E. 2023/2572, K. 2023/3473.
5. Court of Cassation 8th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi), K. 2020/8332, assessment of compensation for unjust occupation and prevention of use.
6. Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, June 20, 2023, E. 2023/2572, K. 2023/3473, full text of the decision.
7. Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, June 24, 2025, E. 2024/4960, K. 2025/3222 (actual use and proof between co-owners).
8. Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, May 14, 2024, E. 2022/6381, K. 2024/2575 (exceptions to prevention of use).
9. Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi), January 16, 2014, E. 2013/15634, K. 2014/590 (joint ownership and divisible compensation for unjust occupation); the full text of the decision on De Jure was reviewed.
10. Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, May 15, 2025, E. 2024/4795, K. 2025/2661 (agricultural crops and expert calculation).
11. Court of Cassation 8th Civil Chamber, June 30, 2020, E. 2018/14130, K. 2020/4242 (accrued period and statute of limitations); a passage of the decision on De Jure was reviewed.
12. Law No. 3095 on Statutory Interest and Default Interest (Kanuni Faiz ve Temerrüt Faizine İlişkin Kanun), Article 1, 2026 amendment by Law No. 7589.
13. Court of Cassation 8th Civil Chamber, May 18, 2021, E. 2020/129, K. 2021/4138 (assessment of subject-matter jurisdiction).
14. Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi), May 20, 2024, E. 2024/2831, K. 2024/6073 (territorial jurisdiction for prevention of encroachment and compensation for unjust occupation).
15. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Article 18/B, Ministry of Justice.
16. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), repealed version of Article 107, Article 109(4) and transitional provisions, Law No. 7589.
17. Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, February 5, 2026, E. 2025/2593, K. 2026/606 (value in dispute and review on appeal).
18. Court of Accounts (Sayıştay) 6th Chamber, March 14, 2019, K. 646 (nature of the property within administrative compensation for unjust occupation).