WRITTEN TRIAL PROCEDURE IN EXPROPRIATION CASES - SIMPLE TRIAL PROCEDURE

We quote verbatim from the book "Expropriation Without Expropriation and Cases Arising from Zoning Legislation": In cases arising from seizure without expropriation, the written trial procedure should be applied within the framework of general provisions, not the simple trial procedure. Article 38 of the Expropriation Law No. 2942, bearing the side heading "Right-limiting period", was annulled by the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 11/04/2003, No. 2002/112 Principles, 2003/33 Decision. After this annulment decision, the Provisional Article 6 of the Expropriation Law, which is a liquidation provision, regulated the legal status of the immovable properties seized without expropriation between 09/10/1956 and 04/11/1983. Therefore, the regulations regarding the real estates actually seized between 09/10/1956 and 04/11/1983 are also subject to simple trial procedure as disputes arising from the Expropriation Law. BurIt should be noted right away that; Since the date on which an immovable property was seized is a situation that often requires a trial, if the petition does not clearly claim that the immovable property was actually seized before 04/11/1983, the written trial procedure must be applied in order not to restrict the right of defense, and if it is clearly claimed in the petition that the immovable property was actually seized before 04/11/1983, a trial must be held within the framework of the simple trial procedure." (Erdoğan BUYURGAN / Emel KARABAĞ, Cases Arising from Expropriation and Zoning Legislation, 2nd Edition, Yetkin Publications, Ankara 2021, p. 1154-1155.)In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals No. 2017/31520 E. 2018/25263 K. dated 18.12.2018: "If it is determined on which date the immovable property was seized and it is determined that it was seized between 09/10/1956 and 04/11/1983, according to the simple trial procedure, Article 320/last. of the Civil Code, If it is determined that it was seized after 04/11/1983, it is not considered correct to make a decision in writing, without taking into account the need to take action in accordance with Article 150 of the Civil Code, according to the written trial procedure, and without conducting an investigation in this regard.

Since the appeal objections of the plaintiff's attorney are valid, it has been decided that the verdict should be REVERSED for the reasons explained in accordance with Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in case the property in question was confiscated before 1983, the SIMPLE TRIAL PROCEDURE WILL BE USED; IF IT WAS SEIZED AFTER 1983, THE WRITTEN TRIAL PROCEDURE WILL BE APPROVED. IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT IT SHOULD BE APPLIED.