Expropriation is a property acquisition procedure that the administration conducts in accordance with the law and in which it must pay the actual value of the immovable property; taking without expropriation (kamulaştırmasız el atma), by contrast, is a factual interference with ownership, or a long-lasting legal restriction of the power to use the property, without these safeguards being applied. Using a property as a road or facility and designating it for a public service in the zoning plan without expropriating it are not the same dispute. The judicial branch for the value action, the date of the taking, annulment actions against administrative planning acts, compensation for unjust occupation (ecrimisil), conciliation and interest should be assessed separately. Decisions of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) and the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) dated 2025–2026 make it necessary to update earlier explanations, particularly with regard to legal taking (hukuki el atma), payment of the actual value and legal remedies.
Why are the right of property and expropriation subject to strict constitutional safeguards?
The right of property is safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution. This right is not absolute; it may be restricted by law for the purpose of the public interest. However, because expropriation makes it possible to transfer immovable property into public ownership without the owner’s consent, it is additionally subject to the special safeguards in Article 46 of the Constitution. Public interest, statutory procedure, actual value and, in principle, payment in advance and in cash form the basis of this system. The limited exceptions for payment in installments provided for in Article 46 of the Constitution cannot be generalized to all expropriations. [1]
Law No. 2942 on Expropriation (Kamulaştırma Kanunu) regulates different processes, ranging from the public-interest decision to the purchase attempt, from the determination of compensation and registration and the special urgent expropriation procedure to transfers between administrations. By contrast, the administration may, without carrying out the statutory expropriation process, actually use a privately owned property as a road, park, energy line or facility; or the owner may, even though the property is not physically touched, be unable for years to carry out ordinary dispositions because a public facility area has been designated in the zoning plan. Their legal nature and the remedies available differ.
Not every public interference is automatically a taking without expropriation. Temporary damage to the property, nuisance caused by a neighboring public facility, a request for annulment of the implementing zoning plan (uygulama imar planı), a land readjustment contribution share (düzenleme ortaklık payı) procedure, an expropriation annotation, the establishment of an easement and a duly conducted urgent expropriation may rest on different legal grounds. What is decisive is not the name of the action but the material facts and the legal protection requested.
De facto taking, legal taking and service fault of the administration cannot be used interchangeably
In a de facto taking, the administration establishes actual control over the property or prevents the owner’s use in a concrete and permanent manner. Building a road, constructing a public facility or actually incorporating a parcel into a public service are typical forms. However, the entry of any temporary construction machinery or an isolated instance of damage does not in itself require an award of the value of the ownership; the scope and permanence of the taking, its connection with the project and its effect on use are examined.
In a legal taking, while possession of the property, as a rule, remains with the owner, the implementing zoning plan designates the property as a road, school, park or other public service; the administration’s failure for a long time to expropriate, carry out zoning implementation or take an act lifting the restriction limits the powers of ownership to an excessive degree. The content and duration of the plan, the actual restriction it imposes on the property, subsequent changes made and the owner’s possibilities of benefiting from the property are decisive. [2] [3]
Another claim arising from the administration’s service fault or from the annulment of the plan differs from a request to convert ownership into its value because of a taking without expropriation. Therefore, the competent judicial branch cannot be settled solely on the ground that “there is a zoning plan” or that it is “an action against the administration.”
How is a lawful expropriation carried out?
Public-interest decision, identification of the property and priority of purchase
The administration first determines the public-service need and its legal authority; it prepares an implementable expropriation decision and the property records. Article 8 of Law No. 2942 accepts as the rule that, for properties registered in the land registry, the purchase procedure is to be applied first. A valuation committee (kıymet takdir komisyonu) and a conciliation committee (uzlaşma komisyonu) are formed within the administration. The owner is informed of the invitation, the valuation, the nature of the property and the negotiation records. If conciliation is reached, the transfer procedures are carried out in accordance with the relevant procedure. [4]
The purpose of the purchase attempt is not merely to send a letter but genuinely to explore the possibility of acquiring the property through administrative negotiation. However, a statement such as “no expropriation step may be taken unless bargaining has first taken place in every case and without exception” is not correct: urgent expropriation and special statutory provisions should be examined separately. If no Article 8 negotiations were held at all in the file, the party must raise the effect of this deficiency on the expropriation process.
Competent court, on-site examination and deposit in the action for determination of compensation and registration
In an ordinary expropriation where no agreement could be reached in the purchase procedure, the administration, pursuant to Article 10 of Law No. 2942, files an action for determination of compensation and registration before the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) with territorial jurisdiction. The court sends a duly issued summons and invites the parties to agree on the compensation; if they cannot agree, it has the necessary on-site examination and expert examination carried out. The expert committee must apply the objective criteria in Article 11, the effects of partial expropriation in Article 12 and the rules on expertise in Article 15. [5]
The compensation is not merely the municipality’s property tax value or the administration’s initial offer. Documents on the characteristics, surface area, actual condition, comparable sales (emsal), building value, zoning conditions and agricultural income of the property, and on any change in value in the remaining part, which serve to determine the actual value of the property, are examined together. If the rights holder and the administration rely on different reports, the court should reach a conclusion not by abstract discretion but with concrete and verifiable reasoning.
Upon deposit of the compensation determined by the court in the manner prescribed by law, a decision on registration and payment is given. The 2026 annulment decision concerning the phrase “the registration judgment is final” in Article 10 of Law No. 2942 is explained below; the annulment decision and its date of entry into force are not the same.
Annulment of the expropriation act and objection to compensation are separate subjects of proceedings
The lawfulness of the administrative decision on which the expropriation is based and the adequacy of the expropriation compensation are separate matters. Article 14 of Law No. 2942 provides, as a rule, for an annulment action against the expropriation act to be filed in the administrative courts within 30 days from the date of notification by the court or of the statutory announcement under Article 10; there is a separate route in the civil courts for the correction of clerical errors. The validity of the notification, the actual addressee and the nature of the act are important in the specific file. [6]
Filing an annulment action and obtaining a stay of execution are not the same thing. The existence of an action for determination of expropriation compensation does not in itself protect the rights relating to the annulment of the administrative act. The effect on the Article 10 proceedings of a stay of execution granted by the administrative courts is assessed separately.
Urgent expropriation, partial expropriation and easement
Urgent expropriation under Article 27 of Law No. 2942 does not mean a waiver of all the safeguards of the ordinary procedure. An urgent possession (acele el koyma) decision does not replace the final expropriation and the determination of the actual value. The required conditions of urgency, the legal basis of the decision, the specific public interest, authority and subsequent steps should be examined separately.
In partial expropriation, one cannot look only at the per-square-meter value of the area taken: the access, shape, zoning conditions, integrity of the agricultural holding and usability of the remaining part are examined under Article 12. If an easement is established as a result of the expropriation, it is not the value of the whole property but the loss of value caused by the right and the relevant statutory elements that are calculated.
De facto taking without expropriation: rights, types of action and judicial branch
What evidence shows that a de facto taking exists?
The owner’s land registry record or cadastral record alone may not be sufficient. It should be determined since what date, by which administration, to what extent and in what manner the area taken has been used. Among the municipality, the General Directorate of Highways (Karayolları), State Hydraulic Works (DSİ), energy/infrastructure administrations and other public bodies, a distinction is drawn between the body that built the structure and the current relationship of use and responsibility. The implemented project, acceptance records, aerial photographs, orthophoto images, zoning map sheets, the cadastral plan (çap) and an on-site examination may be assessed together.
The difference between the whole area actually taken and the part limited only to the project should be shown on coordinates and a sketch by a surveying-engineer expert. Where there is temporary use and repairable damage, directly claiming the ownership value of the whole parcel may lead to an error of legal characterization.
What claims can the owner make?
The classic bases of de facto taking without expropriation are the Court of Cassation’s unification-of-case-law decisions dated May 16, 1956, E.1956/1, K.1956/6 and E.1956/1, K.1956/7. The tort characterization and the distinction concerning the civil judiciary were developed in the decision dated February 11, 1959, E.1958/17, K.1959/15. Depending on the date of the taking and the applicable regime, the owner may request, under Article 683 TMK, the prevention of the interference and restoration of the previous state, or legal protection that will bring about the transfer of ownership in return for its value. The manner in which these options may be raised together and which claims are compatible with each other should be examined in the specific case. [7]
Claims for the value of the part taken, for compensation for unjust occupation for the period of actual use where the conditions are met, and for the redress of a different loss may arise from the same material facts; however, the same period and the same loss cannot be compensated twice. The date until which the claim for compensation for unjust occupation runs, the valuation date on which the value is based and, if any, the registration date should be clear in the court’s judgment.
Subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, parties and standing to be sued
For the property value, the prevention of the taking and related private-law claims arising from a de facto taking, the principal competent forum is the civil judiciary, namely the civil court of first instance. In claims concerning real rights in the property or its possession, the jurisdiction of the place where the property is located under Article 12 HMK is assessed first. If there are several properties, different administrations or only a claim for a sum of money, the connection between subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction is checked again.
The defendant should be the relevant administration that is legally responsible for the interference and that has allocated the property to public service. The assertion that “the municipality built the road” does not in every case identify the correct defendant; the nature of the road, the allocation of duties, the zoning program, related infrastructure decisions and protocols should be examined. A transfer or a change of duties between administrations after the action has been filed is also assessed with regard to party status.
When the date of the taking changes, the legal regime changes too: three periods as of 2026
When the de facto taking began determines, before any discussion of the statute of limitations, whether the special statute applies. Because of the amendment made in 2026, absolute statements in older guides such as “there is never a time limit in de facto taking without expropriation” are risky.
Actual allocation to public service up to October 8, 1956: 2026 Transitional Article 20
Transitional Article 20, added to Law No. 2942 by Law No. 7588, deems properties that were actually allocated to public service in line with the purposes of the expropriation laws, without expropriation, up to October 8, 1956, the date on which the repealed Law No. 6830 entered into force, to have been expropriated on the date of allocation. The article provides for narrow conditions for value claims depending on the land registry and possession status, for pending actions linked to the date January 12, 1963, and for registration consequences. [8]
This provision shows that pre-1956 events may have serious consequences for today’s right of action. However, it should first be proved with concrete documents that the property was actually used before the stated date and in the nature of a public allocation. The retroactive application of the new provision, the possibility of constitutional review and its effect on pending actions should be assessed separately in the context of the specific case. The mere fact that a road looks old today is not proof of an allocation before 1956.
October 9, 1956 – November 4, 1983: Transitional Article 6 and the conciliation requirement
Transitional Article 6 of Law No. 2942 introduces a special regime for resolving the situation of properties that were actually set aside for public service between October 9, 1956 and November 4, 1983 without expropriation procedures being completed or carried out at all. For value claims falling within this period, conducting the conciliation procedure first is a procedural prerequisite. The administrative invitation/application provided for in the article, the six-month negotiation process and the three-month time limit for bringing an action, which begins after the record of disagreement or after the statutory period has expired without result, should be checked. [9]
Attention should be paid not to the name of conciliation but to whether the procedure was actually conducted: the application to the correct administration, notification, identity records concerning the property and the heirs, the valuation method used in the offer and the outcome of the negotiations should be in the file. The court fee, attorney fee award (vekâlet ücreti), payment and collection provisions of this period, and the parts affected by Constitutional Court annulments, should not be automatically transferred to the general post-1983 regime.
After November 4, 1983: the general case-law regime and separate time limits for claims
For de facto takings without expropriation after 1983, it is not possible to rely, with respect to value or prevention-of-interference claims arising from the right of ownership, on the 20-year time limit for bringing an action (hak düşürücü süre) in former Article 38 of Law No. 2942: this provision was annulled by the Constitutional Court’s decision dated April 10, 2003, E.2002/112, K.2003/33. However, not all claims are free of time limits; compensation for unjust occupation, independent tort damages and other claims should be examined in terms of their own statute of limitations and starting conditions. [10]
With regard to compensation for unjust occupation, judicial practice applies a retrospective five-year period limit. Merging the time limit of the value claim with the retrospective period of compensation for unjust occupation may lead to the loss of a significant amount of the claim or to unnecessary procedural disputes. The calculation of the value on the basis of the actual value on the date of the action and the effect on the valuation of the characteristics on the date of the taking are also separate issues.
| De facto taking period | Law to be checked first | Main action/application risk |
|---|---|---|
| Up to October 8, 1956 | Transitional Article 20 of Law No. 2942; historical allocation and 2026 entry-into-force provisions | Being deemed expropriated and extremely limited historical value routes |
| October 9, 1956 – November 4, 1983 | Transitional Article 6 of Law No. 2942 and related Constitutional Court annulments | Conciliation as a procedural prerequisite, special time limit after the disagreement and payment/court fee regime |
| After November 4, 1983 | Protection of ownership, related unification-of-case-law decisions, special provisions | Different time-limit and calculation rules for value and for compensation for unjust occupation/other losses |
Legal taking without expropriation: long-lasting restriction through the zoning plan
Does every public area marking give rise to a right to compensation?
No. Article 10 of Zoning Law No. 3194 (İmar Kanunu) requires municipalities to prepare a five-year zoning program within three months at the latest from the entry into force of zoning plans, and regulates the expropriation, within the program period, of the public service areas covered by the program by the relevant public bodies. Supplementary Article 1 of Law No. 2942 also aims for the restrictions in the implementing zoning plan to be removed within the five-year period through expropriation, zoning implementation or a plan amendment lifting the restriction. [2] [11]
Nevertheless, merely seeing green coloring, or the words “park” or “social facility,” on the plan does not mean that a right to compensation has automatically arisen. Whether the restriction is severe enough to affect the essence of the right of property, its duration, the approved implementing zoning plan, the entry into force of the plan and its amendments, responsibility for expropriation, whether zoning implementation has been carried out and the rights the owner can still exercise should be examined.
Indeed, in the decision of the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi) dated February 24, 2026, E.2025/7595, K.2026/3211, the judgment upholding the claim was reversed, with emphasis on the point that the property’s remaining in an unplanned area after the judicial annulment of the plans, and its merely being within the boundary of an urban transformation project, did not separately and automatically justify a claim for the value of a legal taking. Instead of assuming that the interference continues, it is necessary to prove the current status of the plan and decisions. [12]
Competent judicial branch in legal taking: the 2025 Constitutional Court annulment and the 2026 Court of Jurisdictional Disputes decision
This is the distinction requiring the most attention in 2026 law. In the past, there were changes regarding the judicial branch between different versions of Supplementary Article 1 of Law No. 2942 and between the approaches of the Court of Cassation and the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes. Article 3 of Law No. 7421 had added the sentence stating that value-of-ownership actions based on legal taking would be heard in the civil judiciary. The Constitutional Court’s decision dated January 16, 2025, E.2024/135, K.2025/20 annulled this sentence; the annulment entered into force on January 30, 2026. The reasoning for the annulment concerns not only the type of court but the incompatibility with Article 46 of the Constitution of the resolution method that enabled the public administration to obtain ownership without the actual value being paid in advance. [13]
However, in the decision of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes dated March 9, 2026, E.2026/22, K.2026/141, it was accepted, also taking into account that the annulment did not in itself change the judicial branch, that an action seeking the value of a property because of its designation as road/green area in the zoning plan must be heard in the civil judiciary. The above-mentioned decision of the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated February 24, 2026 also reflects the approach of examining, after the statutory annulment, disputes concerning the value of ownership in the civil judiciary. [12] [14]
Consequently, it cannot be said that “all actions concerning legal taking must necessarily be heard in the administrative judiciary.” However, independent full remedy claims based on the annulment of the zoning plan, the refusal of a plan amendment request, a regulatory administrative act or service fault may be subject to the administrative judiciary by virtue of their own act and damage grounds. When the court determines its jurisdiction, it should be clearly stated whether what is sought is the actual value of the property, the removal of the administrative act or independent compensation for service fault.
How is the time limit calculated for annulment of the zoning plan and application to the administration?
An action against the zoning plan itself and a claim for the value of ownership because of a long-lasting restriction are not the same action. The public display and announcement process (askı–ilan) under Article 8 of Law No. 3194, the general time limit for bringing an action under Article 7 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) and the effect on the time limit of an objection under Article 11 are assessed together. Under Article 10 of the Administrative Procedure Law, a failure to respond within 30 days to a request for a new act to be taken may result in implied rejection; by contrast, not every application starts a new and unlimited annulment period for all plans that became final in the past. [15]
In the decision of the Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Council of State (Danıştay İdari Dava Daireleri Kurulu), E.2024/2424, K.2025/73, it was examined that an application for a plan amendment made long after the display period would not automatically revive the time limit for an annulment action that had been missed for the earlier plan. If there is a current and independent administrative act concerning the plan amendment, whether it can be challenged in court is examined separately. [15]
Therefore, the one-line formula “a petition is submitted to the administration, and after 30 days an action for compensation is filed in every case within 60 days” is not reliable. The purpose of the application, the date of the response, implied rejection, the plan’s display schedule, acts that have become final and the legal protection requested should each be set out separately.
ECtHR and Constitutional Court: the effect of long-lasting uncertainty on the right of property
The ECtHR judgment in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden is dated September 23, 1982, not 1981. The Court assessed the excessive burden imposed on the owner by expropriation permits and building prohibitions that remained in force for a long time in the context of the fair balance between the right of property and the public interest. The judgment does not lead to the conclusion that every zoning restriction is automatically a deprivation of property; it requires a discussion of the duration and the actual burden. [16]
The Constitutional Court, too, in its Hüseyin Ünal (Application No. 2017/24715, September 20, 2018) judgment, examined, in terms of the proportionality of the interference with the right of property, the failure for many years to implement the plan designating the property for public service, the failure to expropriate and the failure to provide adequate redress. [17]
Partial taking, project integrity and the condition of the remaining property
The fact that a road passes through only part of a property does not mean that there is no damage with respect to the remaining part. The remaining area’s access to the road, geometric shape, buildability, integrity of the agricultural holding, and easement and infrastructure restrictions should be determined with an expert under Article 12 and in light of the nature of the specific interference.
For this reason, the decisions of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes reach different results depending on the specific subject of the action. In the decision dated April 11, 2016, E.2016/160, K.2016/207, a de facto taking had affected a very small part of the property, and it was accepted that the action filed for the remaining part should also be heard in the civil judiciary under connected circumstances. By contrast, in the decision dated September 16, 2022, E.2022/183, K.2022/424, it was concluded that an independent compensation action filed solely for the part not actually taken, after the compensation action concerning the part actually taken had become final, fell within the jurisdiction of the administrative judiciary. The decisions do not provide a single unconditional jurisdiction rule for the same issue. The outcome of the earlier action concerning the physical interference, the parties, the subject of the action and the current legal restriction on the remaining area should be examined together. [18]
Important distinction: The fact that the competent judicial branch is the civil judiciary because of parcel integrity does not mean that the value of the entire remaining area not actually taken will be paid unconditionally. The judicial branch, the scope of the interference and the subject of the compensation are different examinations.
How is the value calculated? Urban plots, rural land, structures and loss of value
Urban plots: the comparable sales method and concrete comparison
Under Article 11 of Law No. 2942, the value of a property qualifying as an urban plot is determined by taking into account comparable sales without a special purpose made before the date of expropriation. The choice of comparables cannot be reduced to the price per square meter alone. Zoning conditions, the plan legend, road frontage, transport, topography, slope, infrastructure, area size, view and the market conditions of the sale are taken into account. A genuine comparison should be made through the land registry transaction tables for sales in the same area and, where necessary, a cross-check against municipal/tax information.
If the increase in value arises solely from the public project, the statutory limit on including it in the compensation is applied separately. However, existing objective characteristics that must be taken into account in law cannot be excluded solely on this ground.
Rural land: net agricultural income and resolving contradictions between official data
For agricultural land, the net income method is applied, taking into account location, irrigation, the cropping system, crop rotation, crop yield, sale price and production costs. The official data of the Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry (Tarım ve Orman Müdürlüğü), the result of the on-site examination, the actual character and the crop pattern must be consistent with respect to the valuation year. The fact that a single figure has been used in another file does not make that figure correct in all files.
In the decisions of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated April 8, 2026, E.2025/750, K.2026/229 and E.2025/116, K.2026/228, the need to resolve contradictions in agricultural income calculations based on different official data tables and the requirement of a verifiable expert examination were emphasized. If production costs, yield per decare or sale prices are contradictory, merely writing “appropriate” in the report is not sufficient. [19]
Structures, trees, outbuildings and damage to the remaining part
For structures, official unit prices, building cost calculations, the depreciation allowance and the legal/physical characteristics of the structure are used; for trees, standing crops, facilities and outbuildings, the relevant special calculation methods are used. To whom the improvements (muhdesat) belong, the rights of the registered owner, the building permit status and any dispute over ownership may affect who is entitled to the compensation.
In partial expropriation or partial taking, the loss of value of the remaining property should be shown separately. If the access road has been cut off or the zoning integrity has been disrupted, a calculation based only on the square meters taken may not reflect the actual value. On the other hand, if the value of the remaining area has increased, this must also be examined within the relevant article and its limits.
Why can the valuation date change in a taking without expropriation?
In ordinary expropriation and in general post-1983 actions for de facto taking without expropriation, the actual value on the date of the action is an important basic point. However, the date of the taking affects the date as of which the characteristics of the property are determined and whether the special Transitional Article 6 or Transitional Article 20 regime applies. Under Transitional Article 6, the characteristics of the property on the date possession was taken and the special valuation arrangement provided according to the application/action period are also taken into account; a single calculation method is not used across historical periods. [9] [20]
In other types of full remedy actions filed because of administrative plan restrictions, the occurrence of the damage and the valuation date may be discussed differently. A categorical statement such as “in legal taking, the market value on the date of the decision or of the on-site examination applies in every case” should not be used without verifying the specific type of action and the entry-into-force provisions.
Compensation for unjust occupation, interest, court fees and enforcement of the judgment
Compensation for unjust occupation is a claim distinct from the value of the property
Because of de facto occupation without expropriation, a claim for compensation for unjust occupation or a related damages claim under Article 995 TMK may arise for past use by a bad-faith possessor. Compensation for unjust occupation is not the same as the expropriation value of the property. In the practice concerning compensation for unjust occupation, a retrospective five-year statute of limitations is accepted. Party status, the period claimed, the manner of use, any formal notice and the administration’s status as an unlawful possessor should be determined in the specific case.
Although a value claim and a claim for compensation for unjust occupation may coexist, duplicate compensation for the loss of the same period cannot be requested. The valuation or registration date of the value, the end of the past period of use and, if any, the starting dates for interest should be consistent with each other.
Interest: statutory interest, the interest applied to public receivables and loss of value
In expropriation and taking-without-expropriation disputes, the type and starting point of interest are determined separately with regard to the year in which the action was filed, the nature of the relationship, the special provisions of Law No. 2942 and the Constitutional Court annulments. Under Article 46 of the Constitution, the safeguard of the highest interest rate applied to public receivables for expropriation compensation not paid in advance and for increased amounts established by final judgment is also of particular importance. The Constitutional Court’s decision dated June 27, 2024, E.2024/4, K.2024/129 annulled the provision in Transitional Article 19 that provided for statutory interest on certain claims payable in installments. [21]
It is not correct to apply a single rate automatically to every file from the date of the action. In particular, the reasoning should address the date on which the earlier legislation was in force, the effect of the annulment decision on files that have not become final and the period to which the awarded amount relates. In claims concerning interest or the loss of value of money, the current case law of the specific period of proceedings should be taken as the basis.
The 2026 amendment on court fees and litigation costs
Article 29 of Law No. 2942 was amended by Article 16 of Law No. 7584 in June 2026. It is now expressly provided that certain costs, including title deed fees arising in the enforcement of final judgments ordering registration in the name of the administration as a result of taking-without-expropriation and compensation actions, or in the implementation of a conciliation record with the administration, are to be paid by the administration. [22]
Which historical regime the action is tied to, whether the restrictive cost/court fee provisions of Transitional Article 6 apply to post-1983 actions, and all elements of the value in dispute (value, compensation for unjust occupation, remaining part) are checked separately. The court fee for the action, the attorney fee award and the enforcement fee are not the same item.
2026: annulment of the administration’s exemption from security for suspension of enforcement
The Constitutional Court’s decision dated May 13, 2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/106 annulled, with respect to compensation actions filed because of taking without expropriation, the administration’s privilege of not providing security for suspension of enforcement, regulated in the second paragraph of Supplementary Article 4 of Law No. 2942. The decision was published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) dated August 7, 2026. This does not mean that every enforceable judgment (ilam) will be collected immediately and in all circumstances without any procedural step; enforcement is carried out within the scope of Article 36 of Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy (İİK) and the provisions to which the specific debtor administration is subject. [23]
The provision in Supplementary Article 4 of Law No. 2942 on payment within 30 days after written notification of the bank account must not be confused with the annulled second paragraph. Nor should it be accepted that the fixed court fee provision in the third paragraph of the same article applies to all post-1983 actions; a check of the period and the case law is required.
2026–2027 changes to legal remedies: three dates should be distinguished
The 2026 annulment concerning the finality of the registration judgment
By its decision dated February 12, 2026, E.2025/190, K.2026/38, the Constitutional Court annulled the phrase “The registration judgment is final, …” in Article 10(8) of Law No. 2942. The reasoning is that allowing ownership of the property to pass to the public administration before the actual value has become final through review by way of legal remedy is incompatible with the safeguard of advance payment of the actual value in Article 46 of the Constitution. The decision was published in the Official Gazette dated May 21, 2026, and the entry into force of the annulment was postponed by nine months: February 21, 2027. Accordingly, the consequences of an annulment that has not entered into force as of October 17, 2026 cannot be applied to all current registration files as if they had already materialized. [24]
Appeal threshold in the determination of expropriation compensation: October 20, 2026
The Constitutional Court’s decision dated October 8, 2025, E.2025/124, K.2025/203 annulled the monetary limitation on appeals to the Court of Cassation in Article 362(1)(a) HMK with respect to actions concerning the determination of expropriation compensation. The date of entry into force of the annulment is stated as October 20, 2026. Accordingly, October 17, 2026, the research date of this article, is three days before that entry into force. In pending actions and in decisions/applications for legal remedies after this date, the transitional provisions, the date of the review by way of legal remedy and the current legislation should be checked separately. [25]
Annulment of a norm and automatic change of an earlier decision are not the same thing
Constitutional Court norm review decisions affect a specific statutory provision and its date of entry into force. The annulment of a norm does not mean that all past land registry records, final court decisions or completed payments disappear without any procedural step. Lis pendens (derdestlik), procedurally acquired rights (usulî kazanılmış hak), res judicata, the conditions for constitutional individual application and application ratione temporis are examined separately.
Comparison of expropriation and taking without expropriation
| Criterion | Ordinary expropriation | De facto taking without expropriation | Legal taking without expropriation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main fact | Statutory public interest and expropriation act | Physical interference or permanent actual control | Prolonged restriction under the implementing zoning plan |
| Main legal basis | Article 46 of the Constitution; Articles 8–15 of Law No. 2942 | Article 683 TMK; unification-of-case-law decisions; where applicable, Transitional Article 6/20 of Law No. 2942 | Article 10 of Law No. 3194; Supplementary Article 1 of Law No. 2942; Constitutional Court and Court of Jurisdictional Disputes decisions |
| Value action | Filed by the administration; Article 10 | Brought by the owner or rights holder | Brought by the owner by proving the conditions of the continuing restriction |
| Main judicial branch for the value claim | Civil court of first instance | Civil court of first instance | Civil judiciary in the 2026 Court of Jurisdictional Disputes/Court of Cassation decisions; the nature of the claim must always be distinguished |
| Annulment of administrative act | Administrative judiciary for the expropriation act | Any separate administrative act through its own route | Administrative judiciary for the zoning plan or the related refusal |
| Valuation | Articles 11–12; specific date of action and statutory criteria | Valuation according to the regime applicable on the date of the taking | Legal characterization of the action, current plan status and valuation criteria |
| Special time limit and prior application | 30 days for the Article 14 annulment action; Article 8 purchase | 1956–1983: Transitional Article 6 conciliation/special time limit; past compensation for unjust occupation 5 years | Distinguishing the announcement of the plan/objection/applications under the Administrative Procedure Law from the value claim |
| Enforcement of the judgment | Deposit of value–registration and current legal remedy | Provisions on value, compensation for unjust occupation, interest and enforcement | Redress of the violation; constitutional safeguards of the registration/value relationship |
Which documents and which steps should be checked before the action?
The documents below gain importance depending on the type of claim. It cannot be said that all of them are mandatory in every file; however, those that can establish the decisive facts of the dispute should not be left out of the plan of proof.
- Ownership and party status: Current and historical land registry records, encumbrances, certificate of inheritance, share ratios, cadastral records, easement documents.
- Duration and area of the interference: Dated orthophoto/aerial photograph, existing-condition map, application sketch, technical expert findings, project file, construction/acceptance records, excavation and infrastructure permits.
- Zoning restriction: 1/1000 implementing plan and 1/5000 master plan, approval/display/objection records, plan amendments, zoning implementation, five-year program, public use decisions, applications for permits/zoning status.
- Expropriation act: Public-interest decision, valuation committee, Article 8 notification and negotiation records, Article 10 case file, blocking/deposit receipt, registration and service records.
- Records relating to value: Comparable land registry sales, property/plot value data, official agricultural income and cost tables, building permits, building unit prices, information on trees and improvements, technical findings on the loss of value arising in the partial area.
- Procedure and time limits: Application petition and the date of its receipt by the administration, response/notification, record of disagreement, earlier case files, applications for appeal (istinaf) and appeal to the Court of Cassation (temyiz), finality and enforcement documents.
Order of steps to follow in preparing for the action
- First, the rights holder, the land registry and the current use are established.
- It is determined whether the interference is physical, zoning-based or mixed, or whether it is an independent service fault.
- If there is physical interference, the start date of the de facto taking is identified and Transitional Article 20, Transitional Article 6 or the post-1983 regime is selected.
- The claim is defined separately as value, prevention of the taking, restoration of the previous state, compensation for unjust occupation, annulment of the plan or other compensation; the legal compatibility of the claims to be made together is checked.
- The relevant administration or administrations, and the legal ground on which they are responsible, are determined.
- The procedural prerequisite, administrative application, special time limit and the court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction are checked.
- For each valuation period, suitable comparables, official technical data and requests for on-site examination are prepared.
- Interest, litigation costs, court fees, the attorney fee award, enforcement and the consequences for legal remedies are linked to the type and date of the action.
Related articles: Reacquisition of expropriated property; Removal of the expropriation annotation from the land registry; The administration’s abandonment of expropriation; Expropriation of untitled property.
Conclusion
In expropriation and taking-without-expropriation actions, the first step that prevents a loss of rights is not estimating the value of the property but correctly identifying the legal nature of the interference and the historical regime to be applied. Distinguishing between claims for value, compensation for unjust occupation, annulment of the plan, prevention of the taking and damages arising from administrative action is decisive for the competent judicial branch, the procedural prerequisite, the application time limit and the interest calculation.
In particular, the 2025–2026 Constitutional Court annulments, the 2026 Court of Jurisdictional Disputes decision, the new Transitional Article 20 on takings before 1956 and the upcoming changes to legal remedies show that short and categorical explanations from past years are no longer sufficient. Protection of the right of property is ensured not merely by the administration’s invoking the public interest but by the actual value being determined and paid through a lawful procedure.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the most fundamental difference between taking without expropriation and ordinary expropriation?
In ordinary expropriation, the administration conducts the process of determining/paying the actual value of the property on the basis of the public interest and the statutory procedure. In a taking without expropriation, a physical interference or a long-lasting serious legal restriction arises without this process being applied. In both situations, the type of action and the evidence differ.
If the property appears as a park in the zoning plan, is the value action certain to be won?
No. The entry into force of the implementing plan, how much time has passed, subsequent amendments to the plan, whether expropriation or zoning implementation has been carried out and the actual restriction imposed on the right of property should be examined. The 2026 Court of Cassation decision shows that a plan restriction that was later removed must be assessed.
Which court has jurisdiction over legal taking in 2026?
In actions seeking the value of the property, the 2026 Court of Jurisdictional Disputes and Court of Cassation decisions contain an assessment in favor of the civil judiciary. However, a claim concerning the annulment of the plan or damage from an independent administrative act/inaction may fall within the administrative judiciary; a court cannot be chosen solely on the basis of the “legal taking” label before the subject of the claim has been settled.
Is conciliation mandatory for takings between 1956 and 1983?
For value claims under Transitional Article 6 of Law No. 2942, the conciliation procedure is a procedural prerequisite. The conciliation application and its outcome, as well as the law’s provisions on the six-month negotiation period and the three-month time limit for bringing an action, should be checked in the specific file.
Can value be claimed today for a road or facility built before 1956?
Transitional Article 20, added in 2026 by Law No. 7588, has introduced special provisions deeming certain public-service allocations up to October 8, 1956 to have been expropriated. A general yes or no answer cannot be given without examining the date of the allocation, the legal status of the property, the historical action/payment conditions and any constitutional objections.
Is there a five-year time limit in every case for a taking-without-expropriation action?
No. Five years is important mainly for retrospective compensation for unjust occupation. Ownership protection based on the value of the property and the historical conditions of Transitional Article 6/20 are separate regulations.
Can the owner claim both the value of the property and compensation for unjust occupation?
In suitable specific cases, these two claims may be raised together on different legal grounds. However, the period of unlawful use, the valuation date of the value and the registration/payment relationship should be determined so that double collection for the same loss is prevented.
If a public road passes through only a small part of the parcel, can the value of the whole parcel be claimed?
Not automatically. The road’s effect on the use, access, zoning and economic integrity of the remaining part is examined. Project and parcel integrity are assessed separately with regard to the competent judicial branch and the calculation of compensation.
How is expropriation compensation determined?
Comparable sales are used for urban plots; net agricultural income for agricultural land; and special valuation criteria for structures, trees and other elements. The comparables, official data and expert report should be concrete, reasoned and verifiable.
Are annulment of the expropriation act and the value action the same?
No. While Article 14 provides a special 30-day time limit for annulment of the ordinary expropriation act in the administrative courts, the determination of compensation is carried out before the civil court of first instance under Article 10. Annulment of the zoning plan is also separately subject to the time limits of the Administrative Procedure Law.
Does the 2026 Constitutional Court decision on registration apply immediately?
The entry into force of the annulment decision concerning the finality of the registration judgment in Article 10 of Law No. 2942 has been postponed to February 21, 2027. As of October 17, 2026, this provision has not yet entered into force. The date of application should be examined separately with respect to pending files and legal remedies.
Can the administration suspend a taking-without-expropriation judgment at the enforcement stage without security?
The Constitutional Court decision E.2026/24, K.2026/106, published on August 7, 2026, annulled the special exemption from security granted to the administration with respect to compensation actions for taking without expropriation. In the specific enforcement process, Article 36 of the Law on Enforcement and Bankruptcy and other applicable provisions should be taken into account.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 35 and 46; Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi).
- Zoning Law No. 3194 (İmar Kanunu), Article 10; current text.
- Law No. 2942 on Expropriation (Kamulaştırma Kanunu), Supplementary Article 1; Ministry of Justice Legislation (Adalet Bakanlığı Mevzuat).
- Law No. 2942 on Expropriation, Article 8; current text and practice.
- Law No. 2942 on Expropriation, Articles 10, 11, 12 and 15; Ministry of Justice Legislation.
- Law No. 2942 on Expropriation, Article 14; text of the article.
- Court of Cassation, Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law (Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Kurulu), May 16, 1956, E.1956/1, K.1956/6 and K.1956/7; February 11, 1959, E.1958/17, K.1959/15; for historical legal assessments, Constitutional Court Law Reports (AYM Kararlar Dergisi).
- Transitional Article 20 of Law No. 2942, added by Article 8 of Law No. 7588 (2026); legislative text.
- Law No. 2942 on Expropriation, Transitional Article 6; legislation.
- Constitutional Court, E.2002/112, K.2003/33, April 10, 2003; Constitutional Court decision summary.
- Supplementary Article 1 of Law No. 2942 and Article 10 of Law No. 3194; legislation.
- Court of Cassation, Fifth Civil Chamber, E.2025/7595, K.2026/3211, February 24, 2026; full text of the decision, De Jure (membership may be required).
- Constitutional Court, E.2024/135, K.2025/20, January 16, 2025, Official Gazette of April 30, 2025; Constitutional Court announcement and basis of the decision.
- Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, E.2026/22, K.2026/141, March 9, 2026; full text of the decision, De Jure (membership may be required).
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, Articles 7, 10 and 11; Council of State, Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers, E.2024/2424, K.2025/73; text of the decision.
- ECtHR, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, Application Nos. 7151/75 and 7152/75, September 23, 1982; HUDOC original judgment PDF.
- Constitutional Court, Hüseyin Ünal, Application No. 2017/24715, September 20, 2018; Constitutional Court leading judgments on the right of property.
- Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, E.2016/160, K.2016/207, April 11, 2016 and E.2022/183, K.2022/424, September 16, 2022; full text of the 2016 decision, full text of the 2022 decision (De Jure membership may be required).
- Court of Cassation, Civil General Assembly, E.2025/750, K.2026/229 and E.2025/116, K.2026/228, April 8, 2026; decision 2026/229, decision 2026/228 (De Jure membership may be required).
- Court of Cassation, Fifth Civil Chamber, E.2023/11617, K.2024/6945, June 4, 2024; Court of Cassation decision search for the full decision.
- Constitutional Court, E.2024/4, K.2024/129, June 27, 2024; Constitutional Court press release.
- Article 16 of Law No. 7584 and Article 29 of Law No. 2942; current regulation.
- Constitutional Court, E.2026/24, K.2026/106, May 13, 2026, Official Gazette of August 7, 2026; full text of the decision, De Jure (membership may be required).
- Constitutional Court, E.2025/190, K.2026/38, February 12, 2026, Official Gazette of May 21, 2026; official Constitutional Court announcement.
- Constitutional Court, E.2025/124, K.2025/203, October 8, 2025; Constitutional Court original decision PDF.