The applicant’s grandfather, who emigrated from Greece, was granted real estate by deed dated 1945 in accordance with the Housing Law No. 2510. The immovable, which is considered to be in the forest quality in the forest cadastre made several times, was also left out due to the forest quality during the land cadastre made in 1959. Since 1970, the applicant and his Muris have been prevented from using the real estate.
The court of First Instance (Court) rejected the applicant’s claim for damages against the Treasury on 28/12/2009. After the decision of the Supreme Court to overturn the case, the court dealing with the case decided that the value specified in the expert report should be taken from the defendant’s administration and paid to the plaintiff. However, the Supreme Court overturned the court’s decision. The Supreme Court stated that the settlement deed cannot be converted to Cadastral deed due to the nature of the real estate forest.
The applicant claimed that the right to property was violated due to the failure to pay compensation for the real estate that was found to remain within the boundaries of the forest.
Assessment Of The Court
169 of the Constitution on the protection and development of forests. according to the article, forests are not subject to private ownership. However, it is clear that the real estate in question is subject to private property by the public authorities, giving it to the applicant’s Muris.
Public authorities have not been able to show that there is any comment in the Land Registry regarding the fact that this property was a forest at the time it was granted to murise. In addition, there are no facts that indicate that the applicant’s Murisi is able to know that the real estate is a forest.
Since the creation and retention of land registry records is under the supervision of public authorities, it is natural that the state should again be responsible if these records are created incorrectly, although it is a forest.
Forest protection in the context of the immovable based on the public interest if there is a legitimate purpose of the intervention, based on the title State, the observance of the interests of the applicant and the property owner in this context to all applicants of the results of incorrect operation of the administration must be installed.
In Turkish law, the regulation providing for compensation by the state for damages caused by improper retention of the land registry is contained in the Turkish Civil Code 4721. 1007 Of The Aforementioned Act. article; the state is responsible for all damages arising from the retention of the Land Registry, the state can apply to officials who have a defect in the birth of the damage.
Although it includes a legitimate purpose based on the public interest in the context of forest protection, the failure to pay any compensation to the applicant who was deprived of property resulted in the applicant folding the damage caused by the error of the administration in its entirety after the real estate was granted to the applicant’s Muris in accordance with law 2510.
As a result, the intervention placed an excessive burden on the applicant, and the fair balance between the applicant’s property right and the public interest was decayed against the applicant. Therefore, the intervention in property rights is immeasurable.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the right to property was violated on the grounds described.