Constitutionality Review

Contested Provision

The contested provision stipulates that, as of 2025, decisions rendered by the civil chambers of the regional courts of appeal in cases with an amount or value not exceeding 544,000 Turkish liras (TRY) shall not be subject to appeal.

Grounds for the Request for Annulment

It was maintained in brief that the contested provision is unconstitutional on the grounds that it determines whether an appeal may be filed based on the value of the property in dispute between the parties; however, in cases concerning the determination of the compensation for expropriation, the subject-matter of the dispute is the valuation of the immovable itself; and that therefore, where the expropriation value established for the immovable is relied upon as the threshold for appeal, the parties may not invoke different claims concerning the value in appellate proceedings, which constitutes an infringement of the right to legal remedies.

The Court’s Assessment

In its decisions, the Court has acknowledged that the right to seek judicial review of a court decision by another judicial authority is safeguarded within the scope of the right to legal remedies.

The contested provision stipulates that, as of 2025, no appeal on points of law may be lodged against decisions rendered at the appellate stage in cases with an amount or value not exceeding TRY 544,000. The provision further extends to decisions where the regional courts of appeal dismiss the appellate request on the merits, finding lawful the first instance decision, or, having found an unlawfulness, render a new decision on the merits of the dispute.

In its decisions examining the provisions which preclude the appeal on points of law against the decisions rendered by the regional administrative courts, the Court has held that the lack of an avenue for appeal against decisions whereby the appeal courts set aside the first-instance decision and render a decision departing from that of the first-instance court constitute a restriction on the right to seek judicial review of a decision. Accordingly, the contested provision restricts the right to seek judicial review of a decision by precluding an appeal on points of law against decisions in which the regional courts of appeal quash the first-instance decision and, for the first time, rule on the merits in cases concerning “the determination of the compensation for expropriation”, where the amount or value does not exceed TRY 40,000.

Article 361 of Code no. 6100 sets out the decisions rendered by the civil chambers of the regional courts of appeal that may be appealed, whereas Article 362 § 1, which also embodies the contested provision, specifies the decisions that are not appealable. The contested provision stipulates that decisions in cases with an amount or value not exceeding TRY 40,000 (inclusive) may not be subject to appeal. Additional Article 1 of the Code also provides for the adjustment of the monetary threshold specified in the contested provision and specifies the date on which this threshold is to be applied for determining the right of appeal. The subsequent paragraph further sets forth that, for the purpose of applying the monetary threshold, the amount prevailing at the time the proceedings are initiated shall serve as the basis.

In cases concerning the determination of the compensation for expropriation, the establishment of the value of the property constitutes the very substance of the dispute. In other words, in such proceedings, the parties’ claims, or subject-matter of the dispute, do not consist of claims involving a specific monetary amount or value. Accordingly, pursuant to the provision, in proceedings concerning the determination of the compensation for expropriation, no specific amount can be identified at the time the proceedings are instituted. In such cases, the application of the monetary threshold by the judicial authorities may be based on the date of the delivery of the judgment, the value of the expropriated property at the time the proceedings are instituted, or another relevant criterion. In addition, it appears that, for the purposes of establishing the statutory threshold below which judicial decisions are not open to appeal, a criterion such as the dismissed portion of the claim advanced in the proceedings, as referred to in Article 362 § 2 of the Code, cannot be taken as a basis.

Moreover, Article 46 § 1 of the Constitution stipulates that expropriation may be carried out only on the condition that the real value of the immovable property is paid. Therefore, the expropriation of the immovable property at its real value, as provided for in the provision, also constitutes a requirement of the right to property enshrined in Article 35 of the Constitution. Accordingly, as no specific amount can be identified at the time the proceedings are instituted for the determination of the compensation for expropriation, the application of a monetary threshold may result in the property owners being deprived of the full value of their property, due to divergencies in interpretation and assessment.

In this regard, the Court has concluded that the contested provision, which restricts the right to seek judicial review of a decision, fails to fulfil the requirement of legality, as it is neither precise nor foreseeable.

Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.