IN CASES WITHOUT EXPROPRIATION, ATTORNEYS' FEES WILL NOT BE AWARDED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATION IN TERMS OF THE REJECTED PART.

With the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 30.11.2023 and numbered E.2023/101, K.2023/207, the second paragraph of Article 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 was annulled as unconstitutional in terms of "compensation cases based on the reason for confiscation without expropriation". In this respect, if the case is decided to be partially accepted or partially rejected, attorney fees should not be awarded in favor of the defendant administration.In the justification of the relevant annulment decision: "The fact that the plaintiff is partially wrong in the lawsuit filed for compensation based on the reason for confiscation without expropriation does not change the fact that the administration has an action that is clearly contrary to the Constitution. In this respect, even if it is decided to partially accept the said case, the plaintiff must benefit from the guarantees provided for in Article 46 of the Constitution. In other words, even if the claim for compensation based on the reason for seizure without expropriation has been partially rejected, the plaintiff must benefit from the assurance of payment of the real consideration.Any provision that may result in the registration of the immovable property in the name of the administration without paying the real consideration, due to the burden to be imposed on the owner in compensation cases based on expropriation without expropriation, will be incompatible with the assurance of payment of the real consideration stipulated in Article 46 of the Constitution (for similar evaluations, see Kübra Yıldız et al., [GK], App. No: 2018/32734, 28/7/2022, § 61). In this context, IN CASES WHERE IT IS DECIDED TO PARTLY ACCEPT THE CASES IN QUESTION, THE PLAINTIFF IS BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR A PART OF THE TRIAL EXPENSES ACCORDING TO THE RULE, WHICH MAY LEAD TO HIS FAILURE TO OBTAIN THE REAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. In this respect, the limitation imposed on the right to property in compensation cases based on the reason for confiscation without expropriation is incompatible with the wording of Article 46 of the Constitution, which stipulates that expropriation can be carried out by paying the real consideration.r. For the reason explained, the rule is contrary to Articles 13 and 35 of the Constitution in terms of compensation cases based on the reason for confiscation without expropriation. It must be annulled." and the 2nd paragraph of Article 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 has been annulled in terms of compensation cases due to confiscation without expropriation.

HMK article 326/2: "If each of the two parties in the case is partially justified, the court shares the trial expenses according to the ratio of the parties' rightness."

In this respect, if the case is decided to be partially accepted and partially rejected, HMK art. Since the provision of Article 326/2 has been annulled, attorney fees will not be awarded for the part rejected in favor of the defendant administration. BECAUSE IT IS A STABLE SITUATION THAT THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE CASE HAS BEEN ACTUALLY TAKEN AWAY.In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 2025/15854 E. 2026/4849 K. dated 23-03-2026: "The decision of the Constitutional Court dated 30.11.2023 and numbered 2023/101 Principles, Decision numbered 2023/207, published in the Official Gazette dated 18.01.2024 and numbered 32433" "If each of the two parties in the case is partially justified, the court distributes the trial expenses according to the ratio of the parties' rightness", which is regulated in the second paragraph of Article 326 of Law No. 6100 regarding compensation cases due to confiscation without expropriation. "Since the provision was decided to be annulled on the grounds that it is contrary to the Constitution, TRIAL EXPENSES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS." IT HAS BEEN DECISIOND AS WELL THAT NOT AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS (IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATION) HAS BEEN FOUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE AND THE LAW.