Paying Paid Expropriation Fees Late Is Contrary to the Constitutionality of the Rule Stipulating that Only Legal Interest Will Be Paid
The Contested Rule
The contested rule stipulates that if the lawsuit filed to determine the expropriation price is not concluded within four months, legal interest will be applied on the price determined at the end of this period.
Grounds of Application
In summary, the application decision stated that the expropriation price was determined as of the date of the lawsuit, but according to this rule, the legal interest was prevented from starting to be applied four months after the date of the lawsuit. it was stated that the rule of paying the real value of the immovable property to the owner was unconstitutional.
The Court’s Assessment
The application of legal interest in cases where the expropriation price is paid late is one of the tools that will ensure the protection of the economic value of the price in question. However, this instrument is 46 of the Constitution. in order for it to fulfill the requirements of its article, the expropriation price must cover the value lost due to inflation.
Paying paid expropriation price late, the contested rule states that only legal interest will be paid on the expropriation price paid late. There is no regulation regarding the losses that will occur due to inflation and will occur due to exceeding the legal interest. Especially during periods when inflation is high, it will not be possible to compensate for Decapitations caused by inflation between the amount owed by the state due to expropriation and the amount that the creditor rights holder ultimately receives. Therefore, the rightholder will not be able to receive the value of the expropriated real estate according to the actual compensation criteria.
In the expropriation price determination and registration case filed by the administration, the expropriation price is determined as of the date of the case. However, in the rule subject to objection, the start date of the interest is determined as the end date of the fourth month of the trial. In this case, it is clear that the expropriation price will be paid at a later date than the actual allocation date deemed to have been expropriated and the date on which the fair value based on expropriation is determined, and the rightholder may suffer economic losses. Loss exceeding the reasonable limit due to the effect of inflation in the four-month period from the date of determination of the price to the start date of the interest.
In this respect, the rule, which does not take into account the constitutional elements mentioned above and does not meet the criteria of constitutional factual evaluation, is amended by Article 13 of the Constitution. it has been assessed that the limitation contained in the article is contrary to the provision that it cannot be made. To be contrary to the word of the Constitution.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the rule was unconstitutional and should be annulled.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.