On 5/4/2023, in the file numbered E.2022/83, the Constitutional Court ruled that the ninth paragraph added by the 6th article of the Law no. 6459 to the 10th article of the Expropriation Law no. 2942, which was amended by the 5th article of the Law no. 4650, is contrary to the Constitution. and decided to cancel it.
Application Reason
In summary, in the application decision, it was stated that the expropriation fee was determined as of the date of the case, but in accordance with the rule in question, starting to accrue legal interest four months after the date of the case prevented the payment of the real value of the real estate to the owner, and claimed that the rule was contrary to the Constitution.
Evaluation of the Court
In cases where the expropriation fee is paid late, charging legal interest is one of the tools to ensure the preservation of the economic value of the price in question. However, in order for this vehicle to be deemed to comply with the requirements of Article 46 of the Constitution, it must cover the value of the expropriation cost lost due to inflation.
The contested rule states that only legal interest will be paid for the expropriation fee paid late. There is no regulation regarding losses incurred due to inflation and exceeding the legal interest. Especially in high inflationary periods, it will not be possible to eliminate the loss of value due to inflation between the amount owed by the state due to expropriation and the amount finally received by the creditor beneficiary. Therefore, the rightful owner will not be able to receive the price of the expropriated real estate in accordance with the real compensation criterion.
On the other hand, in the expropriation fee determination and registration case filed by the administration, the expropriation fee is determined as of the date of the case. However, with the rule in question, the starting date of interest is determined as the date on which the fourth month of the trial ends. In this case, it is clear that the expropriation fee will be paid on a date later than the date on which it is actually allocated, deemed expropriated, and the current price for expropriation is determined, and that the rightful owner may suffer an economic loss beyond reasonable due to the inflation effect in the four-month period between the date when the price is determined and the start date of interest.
In this respect, it has been evaluated that the rule, which does not take into account the mentioned constitutional elements and does not meet the constitutional criterion of real response, constitutes a violation of the provision stated in Article 13 of the Constitution, which states that the limitation cannot be contrary to the letter of the Constitution.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the rule was unconstitutional and annulled it.