Confiscating without expropriating

Intervening of the administration in the immovable property by restricting the legal actions on the grounds of public interest resulting in the confiscating without expropriation is mentioned in Turkish law for the first time in the decision of the General Assembly on the unification of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Appeal on the 16.05.1956 which contained an understanding of the protection of property rights in the Constitution. It was stated in the aforementioned decision that anyone whose immovable property was improperly confiscated could open a lawsuit to prevent seizure against the administration or demand the cost of the immovable. It was also stated in the decision of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 15.12.2010 that legal intervention, which results in the long-term prevention of legal actions of the owners related to the immovable property as well as administrative intervention on the private property can be considered as confiscating without expropriation, as well as the administrative intervention. In the aforementioned decision, it was stated that in the zoning plans, the areas allocated for public services such as school have not been implemented for years and it is necessary to accept that there is no public interest in the situation and also that the owners of these immovables have been denied any legal action by the administration for years. This situation which destroys the law security should also be considered as confiscation without expropriation. After Clause 38 of the Law on Expropriation No. 2942, which entrusts the cases initiated relating to the seizures of the immovable property to twenty-year statute of limitation, was annulled by the Constitutional Court on 10.04.2003, an application was required in order to seek a settlement with the administration. To reduce the workload of the cases at the courthouses and to minimise the number of applications to the European Human Rights Court, the provisional article 6 of the Law No. 5999 of 30.06.2010, which includes the arrangements for non-expropriated seizures between 09.10.1956- 04.11.1983, has been added to the Expropriation Law no. 2942. Following this legal regulation, amendments have been made to the temporary Article 6 of the Law on Expropriation No. 2942 together with the Law No. 6487, on legal arrangement of 11.06.2013. Finally, Law on Expropriation No. 2942 with Law No. 6745 dated 07.09.2016 was finalised by the additional article 1. Although legal arrangements are made at certain time intervals on the grounds of better resolution of disputes, the common point of all the arrangements mentioned above is to set reconciliation as a prerequisite before filing a suit against the liable administration. Legal arrangements such as "price", "price determination" in the provisions of the articles, the fact that the property, rights and receivables of administrations can not be confiscated, the fact that the citizens will be paid their final claims in instalments by the administration if the budget of the administration can not afford it, are protective arrangements. Surely, all these arrangements constitute a contradiction to Article 35 of the Constitution titled Property Rights, the principles of the state of law of Article 2, the right to legal remedies in Article 36 and Article 10 regarding the equal protection of law. This study will analyse confiscation without expropriation within the scope of above-mentioned judicial decisions and legal regulations in order to present suggestions on the subject.