The right to property protects a person’s ability to benefit from their assets and to dispose of them. Expropriation of real estate by the state, freezing of a bank account, a tax or administrative fine, or late payment of a final debt can all be examined under this right. However, economic loss alone does not amount to a constitutional violation. The existence of a protected asset value, the legal basis and purpose of the interference, the burden placed on the person and the available remedies are assessed together.
The first step in a property rights violation is to use, in time, the administrative or judicial remedy that matches the type of interference. An individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) is not a means of having the value of a property recalculated through a further expert review. The real question is whether constitutional safeguards were protected in resolving the dispute. This guide explains that distinction under Article 35 of the Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. [1] [2]
Which values does the property right protect?
Protection is not limited to titled real estate
Movable and immovable property, company shares and sufficiently identified claims in law can be the subject of property guarantees. The non-recovery of a claim recognised by a final court judgment, or its significant loss of real value, is also important in this context. By contrast, the hope of earning income in the future, a disputed claim raised in a lawsuit, or an expectation of a permit that has not yet been obtained does not by itself constitute a possession within the meaning of the constitution.
The applicant must first show which value belongs to them. A title deed, a document proving share ownership, a final judgment, a contract and the statutory provision giving rise to a claim may be used for this purpose. Where there is inheritance or co-ownership, the applicant’s share and how it was affected by the interference are explained separately. A loss suffered by a company is not treated as the same thing as an interference with a shareholder’s own right; the standing to apply and the status as a victim must be substantiated. [1] [2]
Disputes between private persons may also have a constitutional dimension
The state’s obligation is not limited to refraining from its own interference. In disputes over property between private persons, it must also provide accessible judicial remedies and ensure that those remedies function fairly. Even so, losing every rent, title or debt action does not give rise to the state’s constitutional responsibility. The constitutional problem is established on grounds such as a failure to examine a decisive argument, manifest arbitrariness, the loss of any opportunity to defend oneself, or the imposition of an excessive burden on the person.
How is state interference assessed?
Lawfulness, public interest and proportionality
Articles 13 and 35 of the Constitution are considered together. The interference must have an accessible and foreseeable legal basis, pursue a public interest aim, and strike a reasonable balance between the means used and the aim. An administration’s reference to the public interest does not end the review. The decision must explain why it was necessary, whether a less intrusive method was available, and what burden is placed on the rights holder.
Deprivation of property, regulation of use and other interferences have different characteristics. In expropriation, compensation is a central safeguard, whereas in a temporary protective measure the scope, duration, possibility of objection and regular review of the measure may come to the fore. It cannot be laid down as a single rule that every restriction must be compensated at full market value; the type and severity of the interference are taken into account.
How is a fair balance demonstrated with evidence?
It is not enough for the applicant to say that they have suffered a loss. The dates between which the property could not be used, let or transferred, the effect of the measure on the business, and the dates on which the compensation was determined and paid must be documented. The administration may rely on grounds such as planning needs, public safety, protection of a claim or protection of the environment. An effective application explains why those grounds were insufficient in the concrete case.
For example, in a measure affecting all bank accounts, the amount of the protected claim can be compared with the total value that was blocked. Nevertheless, a measure that exceeds the amount of the debt is not automatically a violation; the risks, alternative safeguards and the actual effect of the measure are examined together. A claim of disproportionality must be built on figures, dates and documents.
Academic literature stresses that proportionality should not be applied merely as an abstract formula, but through the factors specific to loss of value and to real estate. The study by Aydın and Schrijer shows the importance of the relationship between the price and the time of payment in this assessment. Akça’s work helps to place the constitutional protection of property within a broader context than its private law definition. The historical assessments in these studies do not replace current application procedures. [10] [11]
Expropriation and expropriation without formal procedure
The expropriation decision and the dispute over compensation must be distinguished
The action challenging the lawfulness of an expropriation decision and the proceedings determining and registering the compensation are not the same. Article 14 of the Expropriation Law No. 2942 provides a special thirty-day period for bringing an action against the expropriation decision. The starting point is determined under the notification or announcement regime set out in the Law. The general administrative time limit must not be relied on in a way that causes this special period to be missed. The competent authority and the claim for compensation and material error are determined separately. [3]
In reviewing compensation, data such as the nature of the property, comparable sales, income position, and planning and use characteristics are important. An objection to an expert report cannot be limited to saying that the price is low. It should show why the comparable used is unsuitable, which characteristic was not taken into account, and which document would allow a correct comparison.
De facto taking and zoning restriction are not the same dispute
The distinction must be drawn between a property being turned into a road or public facility on the ground without expropriation, and a property being reserved for a public service for a long period in a zoning plan. The date of the interference, whether there is actual use, and whether the claim seeks compensation, the annulment of an administrative act or something else, affect the competent authority and the procedure. An old petition’s court name should not be used directly.
In particular, the Constitutional Court’s decision of 16 January 2025, E. 2024/135, K. 2025/20, which annulled the judicial jurisdiction provision in Additional Article 1 of Law No. 2942, has been reflected in the current text of the law. For this reason, it is not correct to refer all zoning restrictions to the civil courts in a single sentence. The concrete act, the date of the interference, the entry into force and the rules on jurisdiction must each be checked. [3]
How have real decisions explained property protection?
Mehmet Akdoğan and others: protection of the real value of compensation
In its judgment of 19 December 2013 in Mehmet Akdoğan and others, Application No. 2013/817, the First Section of the Constitutional Court set compensation for expropriation at the value on the date of the lawsuit, and it was paid roughly eight years and eight months later without interest. The Court considered the erosion of the compensation by inflation and the burden borne by the applicants, and found a violation of the right to property. [4, §§ 54–63]
The practical significance of the decision is that a nominal payment is not sufficient in every case. However, the decision does not mean that the same type of interest applies to all claims. The basis of an interest claim, its starting date and the current provision applicable to the concrete dispute must be determined separately. In an application, the payment dates, the accrued interest and the alleged loss of value should be shown separately.
Hayriye Uyar: interest that was requested but not examined
In its judgment of 10 February 2026 in Hayriye Uyar, Application No. 2021/50281, the Second Section of the Constitutional Court found that, although the applicant had requested interest on retroactive old-age pension payments, the interest was removed on the ground that no request had been made. The Court found a violation of the effective remedy right connected with the property right and ordered a retrial. This decision should not be summarised as a direct and purely property-right violation. [5, §§ 15–27]
The practical lesson is clear: the part of the petition containing the request, how the court assessed it and its effect on the outcome should be shown side by side in the application. In addition, stating the type and starting point of the interest clearly in the outcome and relief section reduces later disputes about the scope of the claim.
Sporrong and Lönnroth: the burden of prolonged uncertainty
In its plenary judgment in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, Application Nos. 7151/75 and 7152/75, of 23 September 1982, the European Court of Human Rights considered expropriation permits and building bans that remained in force for a long time. The Court found that the balance between the enjoyment of property and the public interest had been upset. The judgment contains dissenting opinions. [6, §§ 61–74]
The decision does not mean that every planning restriction is a violation. The duration, the owner’s ability to change their situation, guarantees of compensation or review, and the actual effect are decisive. The applicant must show not only the existence of the plan, but the concrete burden that the uncertainty, which did not change over time, placed on them.
Where should an application be made for a violation of the property right?
| Interference or dispute | First review and direction of application | Key documents in the file |
|---|---|---|
| Expropriation decision | Ground for the competent judicial route, separating the annulment of the decision from disputes over compensation and registration | Notification, public interest decision, title deed, expert report |
| Restriction arising from a zoning plan | Administrative application and judicial route, depending on the act, conduct and claim | Plan, plan notes, applications, record of use restriction |
| Seizure in a criminal investigation | Objection and return routes under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK); compensation where the conditions are met | Seizure order, continuation orders, proof of ownership of the item |
| Tax or administrative sanction | Special duties, objection and action rules in the relevant law | Notice of assessment, service record, calculation and payment records |
| Property dispute with a private person | Relevant civil action and, where applicable, mediation as a condition of suit | Contract, title deed, payment records, formal notices and evidence |
| Constitutional complaint after ordinary remedies | Individual application to the Constitutional Court, subject to admissibility conditions | Final decision, document showing when it was learned, earlier claims of rights violation |
The table does not by itself establish the correct court for a petition. Different special remedies may apply, particularly to administrative fines, tax transactions and criminal procedural measures. The competent authority is determined by the legal basis of the notified decision. An application made to the administration should not be assumed to suspend the time limit for bringing an action. [3] [7] [8]
Admissibility of the constitutional application
Ordinary remedies and the thirty-day period
Under Law No. 6216, the administrative and judicial remedies capable of remedying the violation must be exhausted. Where possible, the substance of the property complaint should be raised before these bodies. If the applicant raises the constitutional claim for the first time in the AYM form and remained silent in the earlier proceedings, a problem may arise under the principle of subsidiarity. [2]
The time limit for an individual application is thirty days from the date on which the remedies were exhausted or, where no remedy exists, from the date on which the violation was learned of. Situations such as learning of a final decision earlier through UYAP may affect the time limit, so the later notification date alone should not be treated as decisive. The date on which each document was learned of should be recorded; electronic notification and actual knowledge should be assessed separately.
The difference between an appeal and a constitutional claim
The argument that “the expert should have set a higher value” is not sufficient on its own. The constitutional issue must be explained, for example that the report failed to address the decisive objections, that the criteria used were manifestly arbitrary, or that an excessive burden was placed on the owner. The Constitutional Court does not replace the ordinary courts and resolve every valuation dispute again. Manifestly unfounded claims, expiry of the time limit, failure to exhaust remedies or lack of victim status may be grounds for inadmissibility. [2]
The redress requested must be concrete
The application may request a finding of a violation, a retrial where appropriate, and, where the conditions are met, pecuniary or non-pecuniary compensation. The link between the material loss and the constitutional violation must be established, and the amount must be documented. A retrial decision does not mean that the applicant will necessarily win the original case; it requires that the consequences of the violation found be remedied. [2, Art. 50]
Common mistakes in preparing an application
The most common mistake is to explain the property right solely by title ownership, leaving the date, effect and legal nature of the interference unclear. The second mistake is to direct the claim to the wrong competent authority or to the wrong type of claim. The third is to leave interest and compensation claims unclear in the petition, while asserting a loss of value without calculations or documents.
It is useful to prepare a single chronology of the file: acquisition of the right, interference, objection, lawsuit, appeal, notification and payment dates all appear in this table. Next to each allegation of violation, the relevant document and the compensation sought should be shown. This arrangement can be more illuminating than long petitions. Attaching every record matters less than showing which document supports which claim.
Submission of the application and the electronic channel
Under Article 47 of Law No. 6216, applications may be made directly to the Constitutional Court, through the courts or through foreign diplomatic missions. Lawyers may also submit individual applications electronically through the UYAP Lawyer Portal since 1 October 2025. Saving the form and completing its submission are not the same thing; signature, attachments, court fees or legal aid requests, and the registration of the application should be checked. This facility does not mean that all electronic communication channels are valid. [12]
Conclusion
An application that protects the property right must turn the loss of assets into a legal assessment. The existence of the protected value, the basis of the interference, the public interest justification and the burden placed on the person must be explained together. Expropriation, zoning restriction, seizure and late payment of a claim each give rise to different procedural problems. The correct authority, a timely application and a documented claim for redress are decisive for the protection of the constitutional guarantee to be effectively used.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a violation always occur when the state takes my property?
No. The legal basis, the public interest, the amount of any payable compensation and procedural safeguards, together with proportionality, are examined. A lawful expropriation is possible, just as a constitutional violation may arise because of the compensation or the process.
Can I apply if the title deed is not in my name?
Property values other than title ownership may also be protected. However, you must show that your own personal and current right has been affected by the interference. It should not be assumed that you can apply in your own name for someone else’s or a company’s right.
Is the same lawsuit filed for every real estate parcel shown as a park area in a zoning plan?
No. The actual use, the duration of the restriction, the applications made and the legal consequence sought affect the jurisdiction and the type of action. The current position after the annulment relating to Additional Article 1 should also be examined separately.
Does the Constitutional Court determine the value of the property?
No. The Constitutional Court is not an ordinary valuation body or a court of appeal. It examines whether the valuation process complied with constitutional safeguards and whether an excessive burden was placed on the applicant.
Does payment of interest completely eliminate the risk of a violation?
Not always. The payment date, the interest and the real value of the compensation are assessed together. On the other hand, not every inflation difference creates an automatic right to compensation; a concrete basis and loss must be explained.
Can I go to the European Court of Human Rights after a decision of the Constitutional Court?
For a complaint within the scope of the Convention, the exhaustion of domestic remedies and other admissibility conditions are required. As a general rule, the European Court of Human Rights applies a four-month period from the final domestic decision; the starting point and the procedure must be assessed separately. [9]
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), especially Arts. 13, 35, 36, 40, 46 and 148.
- Law No. 6216 on the Constitutional Court (6216 sayılı Kanun), Arts. 45–50.
- Expropriation Law No. 2942 (2942 sayılı Kamulaştırma Kanunu), especially Arts. 10–14 and Additional Art. 1; annulment notes in the current text.
- Constitutional Court, Mehmet Akdoğan and others, B. No: 2013/817, 19 December 2013.
- Constitutional Court, Hayriye Uyar, B. No: 2021/50281, 10 February 2026.
- European Court of Human Rights, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, B. No: 7151/75 and 7152/75, 23 September 1982.
- Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu).
- Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu).
- European Court of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights and additional protocols (Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve ek protokoller), especially Art. 35 and Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- Özgür Aydın and Markus Johannes Theodorus Schrijer, “From Theory to Practice: A Proportionality Review Based on the Property Right Decisions of the Turkish Constitutional Court” (Kuramdan Uygulamaya Ölçülülük İncelemesi: Türk Anayasa Mahkemesinin Mülkiyet Hakkına İlişkin Kararları Üzerinden Bir Değerlendirme), Anayasa Yargısı, 42(1), 2025, pp. 155–191; especially pp. 181–182.
- Kürşat Akça, “Property Right in the Decisions of the Constitutional Court” (Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarında Mülkiyet Hakkı), İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Special Issue, Vol. 1, 2015, pp. 543–596.
- Constitutional Court, Individual Applications Begin to Be Accepted Through the UYAP Lawyer Portal (Bireysel Başvurular UYAP Avukat Portalı Üzerinden Alınmaya Başlandı).