THE JUDICIAL JUDICIAL IS RESPONSIBLE IN LEGAL SECURING CASES

Due to the jurisdiction and authority objections that may be raised by the defendant administration, it became necessary to declare that the competent judicial remedy is the judicial jurisdiction. The provision stating that the judicial judiciary would be responsible for legal seizures within the scope of Additional Article 1 of the Expropriation Law was annulled by the Constitutional Court. When we look at the reasons for annulment in the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 16.01.2025 and numbered E.2024/135, K.2025/20, IT IS CLEARLY SEEN THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISION WAS NOT CANCELLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING OR CHANGE THE PLACE OF DUTY IN LEGAL CONSIZES CASES. As a matter of fact, the Constitutional Court stated in the justification of the relevant annulment decision: "On the other hand, if real estate is needed for the performance of public services, it is necessary to act in accordance with the procedures and principles stipulated for expropriation in Law No. 2942 and other laws. In the case of legal seizure, which is a form of confiscation without expropriation,A situation arises when the administration does not carry out expropriation or zoning operations to remove the restriction within the period stipulated in the law. Accordingly, the price determined by the courts regarding the value of the real estate due to confiscation without expropriation aims to liquidate it by compensating for the illegal situation. In this respect, it is a requirement not only for the courts to impose a price due to confiscation without expropriation, but also to pay the awarded price to the rightful owners as soon as possible in order to eliminate the illegal situation.In the contested rule, the ordinary legal process regarding expropriation transactions is reversed and the burden of filing a lawsuit is placed on the owner whose real estate was confiscated without expropriation. In addition, it will not be possible to talk about a real compensation or liquidation in the event that the land registry record of the owner of the immovable property is decided to be canceled and registered in the name of the defendant administration without fulfilling the condition of paying the real value of the immovable property in advance, as determined by the court decisions. Because the first paragraph of Article 46 of the Constitution - except for the exceptional cases specified in the second paragraph of the said article - does not allow the expropriation of real estate, in other words, its registration in the name of the administration, unless the real value is paid in advance. The regulation for the purpose of liquidation without providing any assurance that prevents the registration of the immovable property in the name of the administration without ensuring the payment of the judged price to the owner is contrary to the Constitution."It cannot be said that it meets the requirements of Article 46."In accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws, expropriation is a legal procedure that regulates the administration's seizure of privately owned real estate for public benefit by paying the price in advance and in cash. However, in practice, administrations actually seize immovable properties and even register these immovable properties in their own names, without complying with this legal procedure and without fulfilling the obligation to pay the price, which is the most basic element. THE STATUTORY PROVISION THAT WAS THE SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION FORCED THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHOSE PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN ORDER TO RECEIVE WHAT HE WAS RIGHTEOUS. This situation imposes the consequences of the illegal action of the administration on the citizens; It was causing him to face the burden and expense of an additional lawsuit. So much so that, if a lawsuit is not filed, it becomes inevitable that the citizen will suffer loss of rights and the protection of the right to property, which is a constitutional right, becomes almost a state of the homeland.It was tied to the burden of filing a lawsuit, which was presented as a favor to the person. The Constitutional Court drew attention to this very injustice when annulling the provision in question. When the reason for annulment of the Supreme Court is examined, it is seen that its purpose is to prevent the property rights of the citizens, which have already been violated by the unlawful action of the administration, from being further damaged by imposing the burden of filing a lawsuit on the citizens. THE SUPREME COURT HAS EMPHASIZED IN THE DECISION THAT CITIZENS SHOULD BE ENSURED TO REACH THEIR RIGHTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND WITH THE MINIMUM BURDEN. In this case, the courts that apply the law have the duty of alleviating this burden on the citizens.As a result, the aim of the Constitutional Court is not to change the judicial branch in charge or to introduce a new regulation on this issue. NEITHER IN THE REASONS OR THE WORDS OF THE CANCELLATION DECISION, THERE IS NO DETERMINATION OR GUIDANCE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIAL JURISDICTION INSTEAD OF THE JUDICIAL JURISDICTION IS RESPONSIBLE IN "LEGAL TAKEAWAY" CASES. CANCELLATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISION CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS THE DUTY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIAL.