IF THE DATE OF CONSTRAINING CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED EXACTLY, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THE SECURING HAS BEEN AFTER 04.11.1983.

In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 2022/13704 E. 2023/3691 K. 11-04-2023: "According to the conclusion, after determining the nature of the immovable property in question as of the date of seizure; if the date of seizure cannot be determined clearly, it was decided to overturn the decision on the grounds that the property in question was valued according to its quality on the date of the case, assuming that the seizure was after 04.11.1983." The decision of the Regional Court of Justice was approved.In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals No. 2017/34591 E. 2019/7173 K. Dated 11-04-2019: "In case the date of seizure cannot be determined clearly, assuming that the seizure took place after 04.11.1983, a decision should be made according to the nature of the immovable property in question on the date of the case, but it is not considered correct to make a written decision based on incomplete examination." BY DECISIONING AS WELL, IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT IF THE DATE OF SECURING CANNOT BE EXPRESSLY DETERMINED, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THE SECURING HAPPENED AFTER 04.11.1983.

Again, in the decision of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals No. 2018/6005 E. 2018/12326 K. dated 27.11.2018, it was decided that: "In the concrete case, since there is no document or information about whether the administration's action of confiscation without expropriation dates back to 1983 or not, it must be accepted that the action of seizure occurred after 1983."In the decision of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 2018/4974 E., 2019/38 K.: "In the concrete case, since there is no document or information as to whether the administration's action of confiscation without expropriation dates back to 1983, it should be accepted that the action of seizure occurred after 1983, and the enforcement file was filed on 29/01/2014." It is seen that 277,993.77 TL has also been paid." It was decided as follows.

In the decision numbered 2018/4178 E. 2018/9593 K. of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals: "In the concrete case, since there is no document or information as to whether the administration's action of confiscation without expropriation dates back to 1983, it must be accepted that the action of seizure occurred after 1983." It was decided as follows.In the decision numbered 2015/10532 E., 2017/12540 K. of the 8th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals: "In the concrete case, since there is no document or information about whether the administration's action of confiscation without expropriation dates back to 1983, it must be accepted that the action of seizure occurred after 1983. Payment to the enforcement file was made on 30.12.2013 and 13 06.2014." It is understood that it was done.” It was decided as follows. Regional Court of Justice Trabzon 2nd Civil Chamber 2020/767 E. 2020/1181 K. In its decision dated 16-12-2020: "If the date of seizure cannot be determined clearly, assuming that the seizure took place after 04.11.1983, a decision should be made according to the nature of the immovable property in question on the date of the case, but it is not considered correct to make a written decision based on incomplete examination." It was decided as follows.Regional Court of Justice Trabzon 2nd Civil Chamber 2020/784 E. 2020/810 K. In its decision dated 22-10-2020: "If the date of seizure cannot be determined clearly, assuming that the seizure took place after 04.11.1983, a judgment should be made according to the nature of the immovable property in question on the date of the case, but it is not considered correct to make a written judgment based on incomplete examination." It was decided as follows.

Regional Court of Justice Trabzon 2nd Civil Chamber 2020/918 E. 2020/1051 K. In its decision dated 25-11-2020: "If the date of seizure cannot be determined clearly, assuming that the seizure took place after 04.11.1983, a decision should be made according to the nature of the immovable property in question on the date of the case, but it is not considered correct to make a written decision based on incomplete examination." It was decided as follows.Regional Court of Justice Trabzon 2nd Civil Chamber 2020/954 E. 2020/1093 K. In its decision dated 02-12-2020: "If the date of seizure cannot be determined clearly, assuming that the seizure took place after 04.11.1983, a decision should be made according to the nature of the real estate in question on the date of the case, but it is not considered correct to make a written decision based on incomplete examination." It was decided as follows.

As is consistently emphasized in the decisions of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the 12th Civil Chamber, the 8th Civil Chamber and the Regional Court of Justice; If it cannot be proven with concrete information and documents that the administration's seizure without expropriation took place before 04.11.1983, it must be accepted that the seizure took place after 04.11.1983.