- within Government and Public Sector topic(s)
- within Government, Public Sector, Criminal Law, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
Recent development
The decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye ("Constitutional Court") file No. 2024/103, decision No. 2025/201 ("Decision") was published in the Official Gazette dated 24 December 2025 No. 33117. The Constitutional Court ruled that the phrase "...from the notification of the decision..." regarding the payment period of the remaining judgment and writ fee, as set out in subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 28 of the Law on Fees No. 492 ("Law on Fees"), was unconstitutional and annulled it solely regarding"lawsuits for compensation filed due to de facto expropriation(kamulaştırmasız el atma) where the defendant is not exempt from fees."
The Application for Annulment
The application for annulment was made by the Küçükçekmece 5th Civil Court of First Instance in a case involving a request for the prevention of seizure and compensation for use (ecrimisil). The applicant court argued that collecting the remaining judgment fee without waiting for the finalization of the decision and the loss of the value of money during this process constituted a disproportionate interference with the right to property. Furthermore, it was claimed that the uncertainty regarding whether the term "decision" in the text of the law refers to the first instance court decision or a finalized decision undermines legal predictability.
What does the Decision say?
Following its examination, the Constitutional Court evaluated the dispute under three main headings:
- Annulment Regarding De Facto Expropriation Cases: The Constitutional Court emphasized that the administration's de facto expropriation of an immovable property is an unfair act that violates the right to property. It ruled that forcing the rightful owner to pay the remaining fee before the finalization of the decision in a lawsuit filed to reach the real value of the immovable, and the depreciation of this amount in an inflationary environment, increases the burden on the right to property. This situation was found to be incompatible with the guarantees in Articles 13 and 35 of the Constitution.
- Rejection Regarding Other Lawsuits: Regarding lawsuits other than de facto expropriation, the Constitutional Court stated that collecting a certain portion of the fee in advance serves a legitimate aim, such as balancing the workload of the judiciary. The objection was rejected on the grounds that the legislator exercised its discretion by stipulating that only one-fourth of the fee should be paid in advance, thereby reducing the pressure on the plaintiff, and that guarantees such as legal aid exist.
- Ten-Year Period Barrier: The application was rejected regarding cases where the defendant is exempt from fees because there was a previous rejection decision and the ten-year period has not passed.
Dissenting Opinion
Vice President Basri Bağcı, who cast a dissenting vote against the Decision, argued that the present case was a seizure case between private individuals and that the evaluations regarding the administration's de facto expropriation were not suitable for the concrete case. He also stated that the term "decision" in the rule is understood as the first instance decision in judicial practice; therefore, there is no uncertainty, and general inflationary effects can be seen in all types of disputes.
Conclusion
The Constitutional Court decided that the annulment provision shall enter into force nine months after the publication of the Decision in the Official Gazette (i.e., on 24 September 2026) to eliminate the legal vacuum that would arise.
As a future step, during this nine-month period, the legislative body will need to enact a new regulation to harmonize the fee payment schedule in de facto expropriation cases with the property right guarantees of the Constitution.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
