A transmission line or pipeline laid across a property does not necessarily require the transfer of the entire title to the administration. Where an easement is established by expropriation, the owner keeps ownership, but the powers of use are restricted to the extent the line requires. The basic measure of the compensation payable is not only the area of the route, but the reduction in value that the easement causes across the property as a whole. An annulment action against the route and the determination of compensation are examined in different judicial procedures.
“If the title remains in my name, is no payment made?”, “Is a pylon site calculated at the same price as the line corridor?” and “Which authority should I approach about a pipeline in my garden?” first require identifying the legal basis of the interference. This article explains, under Expropriation Law No. 2942 (Kamulaştırma Kanunu), the scope of the easement, the valuation documents and the routes of application. The review of the legislation and decisions is current as of 13 October 2026.
How Does Easement Expropriation Affect Ownership?
The difference between transfer of ownership and restriction of use
Article 4 of Expropriation Law No. 2942 allows an easement to be established over a specific part of a property, over its height or depth, or over a resource, where this is sufficient for the purpose. This method prevents a broader interference with ownership than the public service requires. The limits of the right created are determined by reviewing the expropriation decision, the project, the sketch, any agreement or court judgment, and the title register together.
In an energy line, ownership of the section where the pylon stands may be acquired, while an easement may be established over the section where the conductors pass. In a pipeline too, the permanent easement area and the temporary work area used during construction may differ. Because the same model is not applied in every project, it cannot be said without seeing the file that the ownership of the entire corridor has been taken or that all use has been prohibited.
What can the owner do where an easement is registered on the title?
The owner continues any use that is compatible with the scope of the right. For agricultural activity, tree planting, construction, excavation or changes of ground level, the technical characteristics of the line and the specific legislation that applies are important. The fact that a pipe lies underground does not mean that surface use is unlimited. On the other hand, the statement that “the line passes through” does not mean that every activity on the parcel is automatically prohibited.
Conditions such as building limits, safety distances and access for maintenance should be obtained in writing from the relevant institution. It cannot be assumed that the distance set for one project applies to all energy or natural gas lines. The zoning status and the view of the line operator should be considered together.
How Is the Easement Compensation Calculated?
The governing measure is the diminution in value of the whole property
Under Article 11 of the Law, the loss of value that arises across the whole property as a result of the easement is the ground on which compensation is shown. First, the value of the property at the date legally applicable is determined; then the effect of the easement on the use value and market value is examined. The valuation criteria for building plots, agricultural land and any structures or installations on them are not the same. The general operation of the compensation proceedings is explained in the article Determination of Expropriation Compensation and Registration Action.
Factors that may affect the loss of value include whether the line crosses the middle or the edge of the parcel, the shape of the parcel, pylon locations, safety distances, the movement of agricultural machinery, the irrigation arrangement and existing construction conditions. Each of these should be explained with concrete data. A report that merely states “a ten percent loss of value is appropriate”, without showing the link between that rate and the characteristics of the property, can be challenged.
Illustrative calculation example
Only to show the logic of the calculation, assume that a property worth 4,000,000 TL before the easement is found, after technical and economic review, to be worth 3,640,000 TL because of the easement. On this assumption, the easement compensation is 360,000 TL. The example does not mean that courts will apply a nine percent loss in every case; it shows how the difference between the two values should be read.
If the pylon site has also been made the subject of expropriation of ownership, the compensation for that section and the easement calculation must be built to match each other. The same area or loss must not be added twice, and a separate compensation item must not be left out on the assumption that it is already included in the other calculation. A hypothetical increase in value that the expropriation project itself will create cannot be used to reduce the compensation to the owner's detriment without regard to the limit in Article 11 of the Law.
Why is calculating with a fixed percentage problematic?
In practice, percentages that have been discussed in case law for different types of lines and properties are encountered. However, presenting them as a statutory tariff to be applied to all parcels is not correct. In particular, where it is unclear whether the loss is applied to the easement area or to the value of the whole parcel, the same percentage produces entirely different results. An expert report must explain, in a way that can be reviewed, the approach it uses and how that approach relates to the specific case.
Ground Projection and Sway Zone of an Energy Transmission Line
The ground projection of an energy line on a map and the area affected by the movement of its conductors and by safety requirements may not be the same. This difference matters for the scope of the right established in the land registry and for calculating the loss of value. The review should not be limited to the line drawn on the plan; the electrical and surveying engineering data of the project should also be assessed.
The decision of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) Plenary Assembly in Kübra Yıldız and Others, dated 28 July 2022 and with application No. 2018/32734, concerns a case brought over energy lines laid without expropriation. Different area and calculation approaches were used in that case. The Constitutional Court assessed whether the compensation awarded reflected the real loss of value and whether this was shown with relevant and sufficient reasoning. The effect of the costs of proceedings imposed on the applicant on the compensation forms a separate part of the violation review.
This decision should not be read as meaning that a single area calculation must be used for every energy line. Its practical importance is that a technical dispute cannot be resolved by an unreasoned choice. The owner should have the expert explain why the reports differ, which area represents which restriction on use, and how this affects the compensation. The accessible full text of the decision is given in the sources.
Which Losses Are Examined for a Pipeline?
For a pipeline, the restriction on permanent use must be separated from the losses caused during construction. Loss of produce, trees uprooted, a damaged irrigation system, the quality of the topsoil and the use of the temporary work area may not all be assessed under the same legal and technical heading. The claim must identify which loss it is brought for, whose activity caused it, and whether it has already been paid. Where only part of a parcel is affected, the article Partial Expropriation and Loss of Value on the Remaining Part may also serve as a guide.
For example, the compensation fixed for a permanent easement does not automatically cover the damage caused by rubble left outside the project corridor by the contractor, or by a separately damaged irrigation facility. On the other hand, if the value of the trees has already been taken into account in the report, the same loss cannot be claimed again. Photographs dated before and after the interference, produce records, maintenance costs and the project boundaries help to draw this distinction.
After the line is completed, it should also be recorded whether the land has been restored to its former use. The period between the end of the temporary occupation and the start of the permanent easement is examined separately for the purposes of the claim and the calculation. Whether a claim for loss is brought within the expropriation file or in a separate action depends on the type of act and the liability involved.
Which Dispute Is Heard by Which Court?
| Dispute | Main route of application | Key documents to examine |
|---|---|---|
| Unlawfulness of the expropriation or of the route | Annulment action before the administrative courts | Public interest decision, approval, project and notification |
| Compensation for the easement or pylon site | Compensation and registration proceedings before the civil court of first instance | Title deed, valuation and expert report |
| De facto interference without lawful expropriation | Depending on the nature of the interference, the ordinary courts for de facto expropriation | Date of interference, operator and factual situation |
| Separate loss arising outside the project or during construction | Action determined by the nature of the liability relationship | Loss assessment, activity and payment records |
Under Article 14 of Expropriation Law No. 2942, the period for bringing an action against the expropriation act is a special thirty-day period, linked to court notification under Article 10. Whether there was an announcement or a special notice is examined separately. Holding discussions with the administration does not preserve this period automatically. Where an urgent expropriation decision exists, the route of action against that decision and the expedited procedure are assessed separately. For an action concerning a line laid without expropriation, see the article Actions for De Facto Expropriation Without Formal Expropriation.
Bringing an administrative action does not by itself halt every stage. A request for a stay of execution must be made specifically; to link the compensation action with the administrative action, the details of the administrative action must be submitted to the competent court. Because of the Constitutional Court annulments of 2024 and 2025, the requirement of an absolute stay-of-execution document found in older sources should not be presented as the current rule. Moreover, the Constitutional Court decision E.2025/190, K.2026/38 on the finality of registration has a deferred entry-into-force date of 21 February 2027, so the decision date and the entry-into-force date must be kept distinct.
How to Specify an Objection to an Expert Report
Saying that the compensation is low is not, on its own, a sufficient technical objection. It must be shown which data is wrong and how the correct data could change the result. As a general rule, the two-week period in Article 281 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) applies from notification of the report. Where the statutory conditions are met, a request for additional time must be made within the initial period.
A case-specific review can be built around the following questions:
- Are the easement area, the pylon site and the temporary work area shown separately?
- Has the effect of the line on the whole parcel been examined, or only the corridor area?
- Have the nature of the parcel (building plot or agricultural land) and the valuation date been correctly determined?
- Are comparable sales or agricultural income data comparable with the property?
- Have earlier easements and earlier payments been shown separately?
- Do the safety and construction restrictions rest on the current technical opinion of the relevant institution?
- Have the differences in method and result between the reports been explained?
The court may be asked to have missing matters completed, to order a supplementary report or, where the conditions exist, a new expert examination. A private expert opinion can also help to explain the technical objection, but it does not bind the court. The value of an on-site examination (keşif) lies in relating each feature seen on the ground to the right in dispute and to the method of calculation.
Earlier Easement, New Line and Responsible Institution
The existence of an earlier line on the property does not mean that the new line gives rise to no compensation. The scope of the earlier easement, the compensation stated to have been paid, the location of the new line and any additional restriction on use should be compared. A distinction is drawn between paying again for the same loss and leaving a new interference without compensation. An administrative action on the lawfulness of the procedure is covered in the article Action to Annul an Expropriation Procedure.
The institution named in the land registry, the company actually operating the line and the contractor carrying out the works may not be the same. Operating relationships in electricity distribution or energy projects may have changed. For this reason, a suit should not be directed merely on the basis of a marking on a pylon; the expropriation file, the record of the facility's ownership and any transfer documents should be examined. If the route has changed or the facility has been removed, the removal of the easement from the register is dealt with separately from the compensation dispute.
Conclusion
For energy and pipeline disputes, the right starting point is to determine which right has been acquired and which use has been restricted. Easement compensation is not a calculation limited to the area of the project line; it requires explaining the real loss of value across the whole property. The deadline for an annulment action, the compensation action, the objection to the report and any separately arising losses should be managed on a single case timeline, but each under its own conditions.
Related articles: Right to Reclaim an Expropriated Property and Time Limits; Objection to a Risky Building Determination and Action for Annulment; Objection to a Demolition Order and Action for Annulment
Frequently Asked Questions
If the title remains in my name, is compensation still paid?
Yes. An easement established by expropriation can reduce the value of the property even though ownership is not transferred. The compensation is determined by the criteria in Article 11 of the Law.
Is a pylon site the same as a line crossing?
No. A pylon site may be subject to expropriation of ownership, while the passage of a line may be subject to an easement. The sketch and the registration request for the specific project should be examined.
Can no payment be made because the pipeline is underground?
Being underground is not, on its own, a ground for paying no compensation. The effect on value of restrictions such as excavation, construction, afforestation or access for maintenance is examined.
Will I lose my rights if I do not accept the administration's offer?
Failure to reach an agreement may lead to the compensation being determined by a court. However, a signed settlement or transfer document has different consequences, so its scope must be reviewed before anything is signed.
Can I ask for the line to be removed in a compensation action?
Determining the compensation and reviewing the legal basis of the line or the removal of the interference are not the same claim. The appropriate action and the competent court depend on whether there was an expropriation.
Sources and legal bases
- Expropriation Law No. 2942 (Kamulaştırma Kanunu), especially Articles 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 27.
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), especially Articles 281, 282 and 293.
- Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), especially Articles 20/A and 27.
- AYM, Kübra Yıldız and Others [Plenary Assembly, GK], 28 July 2022, B. No: 2018/32734: official decision record, accessible full text.
- AYM, 25 December 2024, E.2024/101, K.2024/232: decision text.
- AYM, 10 July 2025, E.2025/148, K.2025/141: decision text.
- AYM, 12 February 2026, E.2025/190, K.2026/38: decision text. Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete, RG) of 21 May 2026; nine-month deferral of entry into force for the relevant annulment provision.