FINAL FEE WILL BE IMPOSED IN LEGAL SECURING CASES

In the Additional Article 1 of the Expropriation Law No. 2942, compensation for the damage suffered by the real estate owner due to legal seizure is regulated, and in the third paragraph of the Additional Article 4 of the same Law, it is clearly stated that "Court and enforcement fees related to the price and compensation decisions given in the cases filed within the scope of this Law are determined as a lump sum to be paid by the defendant administration." provision is included. Therefore, in case the concrete dispute is in the nature of a legal seizure, Annex 4/3 of Law No. 2942. In accordance with the article, a fixed fee must be imposed.In the established practice of the Supreme Court, the mentioned provision is also applied in legal seizure cases; It is accepted that a fixed fee should be collected instead of a relative fee based on the case value. In the decisions of the Supreme Court, it is accepted that if it is determined that the immovable property has not been actually seized and the dispute is in the nature of legal seizure, Additional Article 4 of Law No. 2942 should be applied and a fixed fee should be imposed, regardless of the date of seizure.5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals 2023/131 E. 2023/6985 K. Decision dated 11-09-2023: "With the sentence added to the 3rd article of the Law No. 7421, which entered into force after being published in the Official Gazette on 26.11.2022, and the 1st article of the Annex No. 2942, the areas that are legally restricted by allocating to the public in the implementation zoning plans "Since it is stated that the lawsuits to be filed by the owners of the immovable properties regarding the price arising from the right of ownership will be heard in the judicial judiciary, and since it is stated that the fixed fee must be awarded in terms of these cases in accordance with the Additional Article 4 added by the Article 5 of Law No. 7421, the decision must be reversed."Supreme Court of Appeals 5th Civil Chamber 2025/9597 E. 2026/4640 K. Decision dated 12-03-2026: "In the scientific expert report on which the decision was based, it was determined that there was no actual confiscation of the immovable property numbered 84 41... in the subject matter of the case, and considering that it was legally seized by being planned as an Open Sports Facility Area in the zoning plan, Law No. 7421 and No. 2942 "The decision must be reversed since a fixed fee must be imposed in accordance with the third paragraph of Additional Article 4 added to the Law."