Recent Development

The decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye (“Constitutional Court“) file no. 2025/190, decision no. 2026/38 (“Decision“) was published in the Official Gazette dated 21 May 2026 No. 33260. The Constitutional Court unanimously ruled that the phrase “The registration ruling is final,…” contained in the eighth sentence of the eighth paragraph of Article 10 of the Expropriation Law No. 2942 (“Law“) was unconstitutional and annulled it on the grounds of its incompatibility with Articles 13, 35, and 46 of the Constitution.

The Rule Subject to Annulment

Article 10 of the Law governs the administration’s right to file a lawsuit before the competent civil court of first instance to determine the expropriation compensation and register the immovable property in the name of the administration where the parties fail to reach an agreement through the purchase procedure. Pursuant to the eighth paragraph of the article, upon submission of proof that the expropriation compensation has been deposited with a bank in the name of the right holder or deposited into a blocked account for that purpose, the court rules on the registration of the immovable in the name of the administration and the payment of the expropriation compensation to the right holder.

The annulled eighth sentence stipulated that this registration ruling was final in nature and that the parties could only seek appellate review regarding the expropriation compensation. Under this provision, the ruling on the registration of the immovable in the name of the administration was not subject to appellate review; only the compensation amount determined by the court could be challenged on appeal.

The Application for Annulment

The application was made by the Bodrum 3rd Civil Court of First Instance in a case for the determination of expropriation compensation and registration. The applicant court argued that, due to the final nature of the registration ruling, the title deed of the immovable remained with the administration even if the expropriation proceedings were subsequently set aside, and that the owner of the immovable was deprived of the right to property without receiving the full real value of the property. The court further contended that compelling the owner to file a lawsuit for cancellation and re-registration based on unlawful registration, or a damages claim for de facto expropriation, conflicted with the principle that cases must be concluded within a reasonable time, and argued that the rule was incompatible with Articles 35, 36, and 46 of the Constitution.

What Does the Decision Say?

The Constitutional Court conducted its examination within the framework of Articles 13, 35, and 46 of the Constitution, focusing on the proportionality of the interference with the right to property and the conformity of the rule with the text of the Constitution:

• The Constitutional Framework of Expropriation: The Constitutional Court emphasized that, under Article 46 of the Constitution, expropriation requires not only the existence of a public interest but also that the real value of the property be paid in advance and in cash. The guarantee of advance payment requires that the real value of the expropriated immovable be paid no later than the date on which the immovable is registered in the name of the administration.
• The Constitutional Problem Created by the Finality of the Registration Ruling: Whether the expropriation compensation determined by the court reflects the real value of the immovable cannot be definitively established before the completion of appellate review. The final nature of the registration ruling causes ownership of the immovable to pass to the administration before the payment of the real value is finally determined. The Constitutional Court noted that the compensation determined at the appellate stage may exceed the amount initially assessed by the court of first instance, and found that in such cases, ownership would have been transferred to the administration without the real value being fully paid.
• Incompatibility with the Advance Payment Guarantee: The Constitutional Court concluded that the contested provision was incompatible with the advance payment guarantee set out in the first paragraph of Article 46 of the Constitution. This guarantee requires that the real value of the immovable, including any increase in compensation finalized through appellate review, be paid no later than the moment of registration. The finality of the registration ruling effectively renders this guarantee inoperative.
• Non-Conformity with the Text of the Constitution: The Constitutional Court recalled that Article 13 of the Constitution requires restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms to conform to the text of the Constitution. Since the annulled provision allows for restrictions on the right to property without the advance payment guarantee under Article 46 being fulfilled, it fails to satisfy this criterion.

On these grounds, the Constitutional Court ruled that the provision was incompatible with Articles 13, 35, and 46 of the Constitution. The rule was not separately examined from the perspective of Article 36 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court decided that the annulment of the phrase “The registration ruling is final,…” shall enter into force nine months after the publication of the Decision in the Official Gazette as the legal vacuum arising from the annulment was considered to be of a nature that would violate the public interest.

During this nine-month period, the legislature is expected to adopt a new legislative framework to align the finality of registration rulings in expropriation compensation and registration proceedings with the advance payment guarantee under Article 46 of the Constitution. The new regulation is expected to introduce a mechanism ensuring that the real value of the immovable is paid or secured in a manner consistent with the advance payment guarantee at the moment of registration.