{"id":31008,"date":"2026-03-28T03:11:50","date_gmt":"2026-03-28T00:11:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bicakhukuk.com\/?p=31008"},"modified":"2026-03-28T14:16:46","modified_gmt":"2026-03-28T11:16:46","slug":"the-right-to-property-in-land-in-turkiye","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bicakhukuk.com\/en\/the-right-to-property-in-land-in-turkiye\/","title":{"rendered":"The Right to Property in Land in T\u00fcrkiye"},"content":{"rendered":"

1. Giri\u015f <\/span><\/h3>\n

Property rights in land occupy a central position in legal systems, serving as a cornerstone of economic development, social stability, and individual autonomy. Unlike movable property, land is inherently limited, immobile, and closely connected to public regulation, urban planning, and environmental considerations. For this reason, the legal protection of property in land has always involved a delicate balance between individual rights and collective interests. In contemporary legal systems, this balance is increasingly framed within the context of human rights law, particularly under the protection afforded by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights<\/a> (ECHR). <\/span>T\u00fcrkiye occupies a prominent position in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights<\/a>. In recent years, it has consistently ranked among the States with the highest number of applications and violations before the Court. A substantial proportion of the Court\u2019s docket originates from T\u00fcrkiye, and a significant majority of judgments concerning T\u00fcrkiye result in findings of at least one violation. This pattern is not limited to a specific category of rights but extends across multiple areas, including the right to property.<\/span><\/p>\n

The frequency and persistence of property-related cases – ranging from expropriation disputes and compensation issues to zoning restrictions, administrative interference, and deficiencies in legal certainty – indicate that the problem is not merely incidental or case-specific. Rather, it suggests the existence of deeper structural challenges affecting the effective protection of property rights in T\u00fcrkiye. <\/span>The persistence of violations of the right to property in T\u00fcrkiye presents a paradox. On the one hand, the Turkish legal system provides a comprehensive framework for the protection of property rights. The Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to property and establishes conditions for lawful expropriation, including the requirement of public interest and compensation. Moreover, domestic legislation and judicial practice formally align with the standards developed under the ECHR. <\/span>On the other hand, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights reveals recurring findings of violations in this area. These violations arise in diverse contexts, including delays in compensation, excessive restrictions on the use of property, failures in the land registration system, legislative interferences, and procedural deficiencies in the enforcement of judicial decisions. This discrepancy between normative guarantees and practical outcomes calls for a deeper examination of the underlying causes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Against this background, the central question of this article is: <\/span>\ud83d\udc49 Why do violations of the right to property in land remain frequent in T\u00fcrkiye under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, despite the existence of a modern legal and constitutional framework aligned with international human rights standards? <\/span>This article argues that the persistence of property-related violations in T\u00fcrkiye cannot be explained solely by contemporary administrative inefficiencies or isolated legal shortcomings. Rather, it reflects a multi-layered structural imbalance in the relationship between public authority and individual property rights.\u00a0<\/span>This imbalance is shaped by a combination of factors, including:<\/span><\/p>\n