When expropriation compensation is paid late, merely depositing the principal does not always mean that a payment consistent with the right to property has been made. The date from which interest starts to run, the collection of the compensation awarded, and any additional loss caused by inflation are examined separately. First, the dates on which the compensation was determined, deposited with the bank and made available to the rights holder must be established.
When must expropriation compensation be paid?
Under Article 46 of the Constitution, payment of the actual value in advance is the basic guarantee. The special installment cases listed in the law are exceptions to this general rule. An administration’s statement about its budget or payment queue does not, by itself, turn all expropriation receivables into installment debts. The procedure by which the transaction was carried out determines the source of the payment obligation.
In the action for determination of compensation and registration under Article 10 of Law No. 2942, the court gives the administration a period within which to deposit the compensation it has determined with the bank. Upon submission of the receipt, a ruling is made on registration and on payment to the rights holder. The owner therefore needs first to review the interim orders in the file and the payment letter sent to the bank. The administration’s depositing of the money and the permission given to the bank to pay the owner are different stages.
The compensation agreed under the purchase procedure, the amount determined at the time of urgent possession, and the sum awarded in the ordinary action for determination of compensation should not be confused with one another. A payment in an urgent possession file does not show that the final compensation has in every case become definitive. Whether an additional payment is needed may emerge in the main compensation action. Amounts already received must be shown separately in the new calculation.
If the money is at the bank but cannot be withdrawn
Bringing a direct action against the bank without identifying the reason for the block may not be well founded. Failure to send the payment instruction, mismatched identity details, a missing certificate of heirship or a dispute over ownership each require a different solution. If a court letter is awaited, a request is made in the relevant file; if entitlement is contested, the outcome of that dispute becomes important.
In the bank records, not only the deposit date but also the nature of the account, the reason for the block, the information on interest accrued and the date from which the money could be withdrawn should be investigated. The period in which the rights holder could not access the money cannot be treated as the same as the period in which he or she could have accessed it but chose not to withdraw it. Whether the delay originates from the administration, from a court procedure or from the rights holder affects the legal assessment of the claim.
Are interest and inflation-related loss of value the same thing?
Interest is calculated at a legal rate on a particular receivable and period. Inflation loss, on the other hand, relates to the erosion of the purchasing power of money. That interest has been paid does not necessarily show that the economic loss has been made good; conversely, a high inflation rate does not automatically ensure that a separate award of damages will be made in every file.
In the file, the principal, interest, interest accrued at the bank and partial payments made are assessed together. Payment must not be demanded twice for the same loss. A later rise in the market value of the immovable property is likewise not, by itself, identical to the monetary loss of value of the expropriation receivable. The date of the valuation of the immovable property and the period of the loss suffered because of late payment of the receivable are different questions.
Can a single interest rate be used for all periods?
Article 46 of the Constitution contains a guarantee, in respect of installment and otherwise unpaid expropriation compensation, relating to the highest interest rate provided for public receivables. From which period this applies in a concrete file must be determined by assessing the nature of the compensation, the registration, the judgment and its finalization, together with the relevant judicial practice. The periods before the action, during the proceedings and after the judgment must not be calculated under a single heading.
For this reason, a calculation that merely applies a current percentage found on the internet to all years is not reliable. If there were rate changes during the period, the calculation is divided. The type, start and end of the interest are shown clearly in the petition. At the enforcement stage, the interest provision in the operative part of the judgment is also examined; enforcement proceedings cannot be used for the direct collection of a new item of damages that is not in the judgment.
Why can the four-month interest rule no longer be regarded as current?
By its decision E.2022/83, K.2023/69 of April 5, 2023, the Constitutional Court annulled the provision under which, if the action for determination of compensation could not be concluded within four months, statutory interest would run from the end of that period. The decision was published in the Official Gazette of August 1, 2023.
The Court assessed that, in high inflation, statutory interest alone may not provide the guarantee of actual value and that leaving the first four months outside the interest period could cause economic loss. This is a judgment on the constitutionality of a norm: it does not order an additional payment of a particular amount to a particular person. The annulment does not mean that all past files are reopened automatically or that a difference is paid to every owner by the same method. For old and finalized files, the application in terms of time is examined separately. Reasoning and operative part of the decision.
Which route is followed in case of late payment?
If the compensation action is ongoing
The claim for interest and loss of value must be raised in the file in good time; the start date and the bases of the calculation must be made concrete. Merely saying “my rights are reserved” does not take the place of the requests and objections required by procedure. The expert report, the periods given for depositing the compensation and the payment orders are followed separately. For the relevant objections to be carried into appellate (istinaf) or Court of Cassation (temyiz) review, it is explained which part of the judgment is erroneous.
The determination of the expropriation compensation at too low a level and a delay in its payment are two separate disputes. An objection concerning an error in comparable sales does not, by itself, prove the loss caused by delay. Conversely, an examination of loss of value does not remove the issue of whether the immovable property was valued correctly. In the petition, the bases of these two claims must be kept apart.
If judgment has been given but no payment has been made
Supplementary Article 4 of Law No. 2942 provides that the awarded compensation, damages, attorney’s fees and litigation costs within its scope are to be deposited within thirty days into the bank account that the claimant or his or her attorney notifies to the administration in writing. If payment is not made within this period, the enforcement route under the general provisions comes into play. The date on which the account notification reached the administration, and its content, must be provable.
The payment application under Supplementary Article 4 and the deposit made before registration in an Article 10 action are not the same stage. Moreover, the same enforcement template should not be applied to de facto expropriation, to the administration’s irregular use of an immovable property, or to files subject to older special regulations. The stay of enforcement, the requirement of finality and the limitations on attachment are assessed according to the specific judgment and the debtor administration.
If a loss exceeding the interest is to be claimed
The legal route to which the claim belongs is determined. An action for additional damages, a claim in the ongoing proceedings, an appeal route and a fundamental rights application are not options that substitute for one another. If the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations on excess damage are to be relied on, their applicability, default, proof and limitation are discussed separately. It cannot be assumed that general inflation data alone will be regarded as sufficient evidence in every case.
An individual application to the Constitutional Court is likewise not the first authority to apply to. The exhaustion of ordinary remedies, the raising of the allegation in those remedies and, as a rule, the thirty-day period from learning of the final decision must be observed. Making a direct individual application when an effective remedy that should have been used exists can lead to an admissibility problem.
The 2026 Constitutional Court decision: what changed on finalization and security?
The Constitutional Court’s decision of May 13, 2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/106, removed the special security exemption granted to the administration in de facto expropriation damages. The decision was published in Official Gazette No. 33333 of August 7, 2026. Because its entry into force was not postponed, the annulment took effect on that date. The review is limited to the second paragraph of Supplementary Article 4 of Law No. 2942 and to damages actions brought because of de facto expropriation.
Is this the decision that made enforcement possible before finalization?
Two different legal developments must be separated. The Constitutional Court’s decision of June 30, 2022, E.2021/127, K.2022/85 annulled the provisions in provisional Article 16 that made enforcement of compensation and damages decisions conditional on finalization and halted proceedings already begun. The obstacle removed by that decision is the finalization requirement arising from the statute. The 2026 decision, by contrast, concerns the special security exemption in the route of stay of enforcement that the administration may use after enforcement has begun.
For this reason, in respect of de facto expropriation damages, enforcement proceedings may as a rule come into play without waiting for the decision to become final; yet the operative part of the decision, the type of dispute and the special procedure to be applied are still examined. It is not correct to regard a separate ruling concerning the immovable property itself, or title registration, as enforceable without a finality requirement on the same reasoning. A mere appeal to the regional court of appeal or the Court of Cassation also does not of itself stay the enforcement of a money claim.
Must the administration now always deposit cash security?
No; such a general conclusion cannot be drawn. First, the annulment does not extend as a whole to the actions for determination of compensation and registration in lawful expropriation. Second, the general security exemption where the debtor is the State continues under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the İİK (Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law). The Constitutional Court did not annul this provision in its 2026 decision. “Administration” and the concept of “State” in this provision should not be assessed as having the same breadth.
Municipalities do not automatically benefit from the exemption provided for the State merely because they are public legal entities. The legal personality of the debtor institution and any special statutory provision are investigated. If there is no other exemption, a stay of enforcement without security cannot be requested in a de facto expropriation receivable by relying on the annulled Supplementary Article 4/2. However, if the debtor has a separate statutory exemption, its effect is assessed in the specific file.
Under İİK Article 36, security does not consist only of depositing cash. The law provides for possibilities such as a deposit, an acceptable pledge or a bank guarantee, as well as the existence of sufficient attached assets. The adequacy and amount of the security are examined according to the file; it cannot be assumed that a fixed percentage will apply in every case. Applying to an appellate route, the grace period, and obtaining a stay decision from the enforcement court of the place where the proceedings are conducted are separate procedures. The existence of security also does not, by itself, take the place of a court decision.
Has the thirty-day payment application been abolished?
The subject of the 2026 decision is the second paragraph of Supplementary Article 4. The written bank account notification and the thirty-day payment period in the first paragraph were not annulled by this decision. The absence of a finalization obstacle does not mean that the payment application that must be applied can be skipped. The application, enforcement and stay stages must be checked separately.
What happens to stay decisions issued earlier?
It cannot be said that the Constitutional Court decision automatically erased the stay decisions in all old files. A request should be made in the relevant enforcement file or court by examining together the temporal effect of the annulment, the basis of the existing decision and the continuing legal situation. The non-retroactivity of an annulment decision and its effect on pending proceedings are not the same question.
The order of checks to be applied for the creditor is as follows: first, whether the receivable is de facto expropriation damages; then, completion of the payment application; and then the exemption basis of the debtor institution and whether a stay decision exists. The continuation of enforcement does not mean that all attachment limitations relating to public property have been lifted. This section is an assessment of the 2026 annulment decision together with the general enforcement provisions in force; it is not a guarantee of collection in any particular file.
The reasoning, operative part and dissenting opinion of the 2026 decision should be read together with the reasoning and operative part of the 2022 decision. The majority reasoning of the 2026 decision dwells on the way a stay without security delays collection and on the erosion of the value of money; the dissenting opinion emphasizes the general State exemption and the guarantee of the appellate route. The dissenting opinion does not take the place of the majority’s binding annulment ruling.
How is the calculation and evidence file prepared?
| Document or date | Function in the review |
|---|---|
| Dates of filing, valuation and registration | Separating the different legal periods |
| Reasoned judgment and appellate decisions | Amount awarded, interest and finalization status |
| Bank receipt and account movements | Deposit, interest accrued, partial payment and withdrawal information |
| Payment letter and reply on the block | When access to the money became possible |
| Account notification to the administration and delivery record | Start of the payment period under Supplementary Article 4 |
| Periodic economic data and loss documents | Verifiable calculation of the economic loss |
In the calculation table, each payment is shown on a separate line. First it is determined which amount was unpaid between which dates, and then the legal interest regime of that period is applied. Interest accrued at the bank and earlier payments are entered against the relevant items. In an inflation comparison, the reason for the index chosen is explained; the consumer price index (TÜFE) and the domestic producer price index (Yİ-ÜFE) are not used interchangeably without reasons.
For old expropriations, Supplementary Article 3 of Law No. 2942 is separately important for compensation deposited with the bank in the name of the rights holder but not paid out. The scope of application of this special regulation is files based on the old registration provisions. It would not be correct to carry the updating method here automatically over to all new expropriation actions. The registration decision of the old file and the bank archive should therefore be examined with particular care.
Conclusion
An effective application concerning late-paid expropriation compensation rests on the correct timeline. When the determination of the compensation, its deposit with the bank and the date it became usable are each documented, the claims for interest, economic loss and collection can be framed more clearly. Rather than treating the old four-month rule as in force or calculating the whole period at a single rate, the current regulations and the stage of the file should be assessed together.
Related articles: Determination of Expropriation Compensation and Title Registration Action; De Facto Expropriation Action; Urgent Expropriation and Urgent Possession; Expropriation of Co-Owned and Inherited Immovable Property
Frequently Asked Questions
Does interest necessarily end once the expropriation money is deposited with the bank?
Whether the amount deposited was made available to the rights holder, and the legal reason for the block, are examined. Not every deposit with the bank produces the same result.
Does receiving the compensation mean giving up the claim for a higher amount?
Receiving the compensation awarded by the court and a settlement or waiver are different acts. The document signed and the time limit for appeal must be checked.
Does the Constitutional Court decision ensure that an inflation difference is paid to everyone automatically?
No. The annulment of a norm and the amount and route of collection of an individual receivable are different matters. The specific claim and the procedural conditions are assessed.
Can enforcement be started without sending an IBAN to the administration?
For receivables within the scope of Supplementary Article 4, the written account notification and the thirty-day payment period must be observed. Whether the receivable falls within that scope is the first subject of review.
Is there the same time limit in every case for an action concerning loss of value?
No. An objection in the compensation action, a separate receivable claim and an individual application are subject to different time-limit regimes. A common deadline cannot be given without seeing the final decision and the service documents.
Sources
- Constitutional Court E.2026/24, K.2026/106, May 13, 2026; Official Gazette Aug. 7, 2026, No. 33333: official publication link. The reasoning, operative part and dissenting opinion were checked against the accessible full-text transcription above.
- Constitutional Court E.2021/127, K.2022/85, June 30, 2022: decision on the finalization requirement.
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004: Art. 36, current text.
- Expropriation Law No. 2942: Art. 10, Supplementary Art. 3 and Supplementary Art. 4, current consolidated text.
- Constitutional Court E.2022/83, K.2023/69, April 5, 2023: official decision citation. Because the official page does not provide the text owing to dynamic content, the reasoning and operative part were read from the accessible transcription of the decision above.
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye: Art. 35, Art. 46 and Art. 153.
- Law No. 6216: Art. 45 and Art. 47.
Date of verification of legislation and sources: October 15, 2026.