IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v95y2020ics0264837719320678.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Zoning plan-based legal confiscation without expropriation in Turkey in light of ECHR decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Coruhlu, Yakup Emre
  • Uzun, Bayram
  • Yildiz, Okan

Abstract

The right to property is a fundamental human right guaranteed by international conventions. In countries like Turkey, where the principles of private ownership apply, this right is guaranteed by laws. The right to property may be restricted by law only in the case of public interest. Nevertheless, the right of ownership of immovable property can be transferred to the public authority only with payment. However, in some cases, a person's immovable property may be de facto converted into a public facility without expropriation. This process is called “confiscation without expropriation”. This concept was introduced into the Turkish Legal System in 1956 by the unauthorized conversion of immovable property for a road. Today, especially in planned areas, a different type of confiscation without expropriation is often seen. Zoning plans are known to be public tools that reorganize properties in public interest. However, the uncertainty in the implementation process of these plans negatively affects the owners of parcels reserved for public use in the zoning plan. This situation is defined in terminology as “legal confiscation without expropriation”. In this study, the subject has been discussed in the light of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions and Turkish judicial decisions, and which institutions are responsible for what kind of zoning functions within zoning plans have been investigated. Official (ex officio) applications and voluntary applications have been compared. Conceptual illustrations on the subject have been prepared. According to the results obtained from the study, it has been stated that all public spaces in the zoning plan are not subject to legal confiscation. Due to their location or characteristics, protected areas, unsuitable geological areas and parcels remaining in agricultural areas can be allocated as public spaces in the zoning plan. In such a case, it is not possible to say that there is legal confiscation. In terms of plan classification, there may be legal confiscation in areas if only a 1/1000-scale implementary zoning plan is in practice. As a solution for legal confiscation, land and real estate arrangements should be made ex officio and without delay. In addition to this, alternative models are also needed. Otherwise, public institutions will be subject to severe financial burdens. Some of the proposals include: granting construction right to zone cadastral parcels affecting public facility areas, or granting the right to construct all cadastral parcels in the plan in specified amounts and also developing a zoning right transfer system.

Suggested Citation

  • Coruhlu, Yakup Emre & Uzun, Bayram & Yildiz, Okan, 2020. "Zoning plan-based legal confiscation without expropriation in Turkey in light of ECHR decisions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:95:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719320678
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719320678
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104598?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce, John W., 1998. "Review Of Tenure Terminology," Tenure Briefs 12814, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Land Tenure Center.
    2. Jack Carr & Lawrence B. Smith, 1975. "Public Land Banking and the Price of Land," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 51(4), pages 316-330.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Uzun, Bayram & Atasoy, Bura Adem & Celik Simsek, Nida, 2022. "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) support for subdivision phase of land readjustment: A case study from Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Anita Kwartnik-Pruc & Grzegorz Ginda & Anna Trembecka, 2022. "Using the DEMATEL Method to Identify Impediments to the Process of Determining Compensation for Expropriated Properties," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Xuejiao Fan & Bin Quan & Zhiwei Deng & Jianxiong Liu, 2022. "Study on Land Use Changes in Changsha–Zhuzhou–Xiangtan under the Background of Cultivated Land Protection Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Uzun, Bayram & Yıldırım, Volkan & Çoruhlu, Yakup Emre & Yıldız, Okan & Terzi, Fatih & Atasoy, Bura Adem, 2024. "Enhancing Turkish land readjustment via a combination of IPA-based on SWOT and workshops," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    5. Yakup Emre Coruhlu & Bayram Uzun & Okan Yildiz, 2020. "Conflict over the Use of Hagia Sophia: The Legal Case," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, September.
    6. Coruhlu, Yakup Emre & Solgun, Necmettin & Baser, Volkan & Terzi, Fatih, 2022. "Revealing the solar energy potential by integration of GIS and AHP in order to compare decisions of the land use on the environmental plans," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abdurahman Yasin Yiğit & Seda Nur Gamze Hamal & Murat Yakar & Ali Ulvi, 2023. "Investigation and Implementation of New Technology Wearable Mobile Laser Scanning (WMLS) in Transition to an Intelligent Geospatial Cadastral Information System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-20, April.
    2. van Vuuren, W., 1976. "Distribution of Gains and Losses Resulting from Planning Legislation: The Compensation-Betterment Problem," Working Papers 244724, University of Guelph, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    3. Sasu, Alexander & Javed, Arshad & Imran, Muhammad & Squires, Graham, 2024. "Land banking, land price and Ghana’s informal land markets: A relational complexity approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    4. Araujo, Claudio & Bonjean, Catherine Araujo & Combes, Jean Louis & Motel, Pascal Combes & Reis, Eustaquio Jose, 2008. "Land Reform And Deforestation In The Brazilian Amazonia," 46th Congress, July 20-23, 2008, Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil 108618, Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administracao e Sociologia Rural (SOBER).
    5. W. Grigsby, 2002. "Subsistence and land tenure in the Sahel," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 19(2), pages 151-164, June.
    6. Nguyen, Tan Quang, 2006. "Forest devolution in Vietnam: Differentiation in benefits from forest among local households," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 409-420, June.
    7. Pascale COMBES MOTEL & Jean-Louis COMBES & Catherine ARAUJO BONJEAN & Claudio ARAUJO & Eustaquio J. REIS, 2010. "Does Land Tenure Insecurity Drive Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon?," Working Papers 201013, CERDI.
    8. Antonio, Wycliffe & Griffith-Charles, Charisse, 2019. "Achieving land development benefits on customary/communal land," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 124-133.
    9. G Hyman & S Markowski, 1980. "Speculation and Inflation in the Market for House-Building Land in England and Wales," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 12(10), pages 1119-1130, October.
    10. Brück, Tilman & Schindler, Kati, 2009. "Smallholder Land Access in Post-War Northern Mozambique," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1379-1389, August.
    11. Chen, Jie & Wu, Fulong, 2022. "Housing and land financialization under the state ownership of land in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    12. repec:kqi:journl:2017-2-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Hari Prasad Bhattarai, 2017. "Indigenous Peoples and Right to Natural Resources: An Assessment of Changing Paradigms of Forest Tenure Rights in Nepal," Journal of Development Innovations, KarmaQuest International, vol. 1(2), pages 29-57, October.
    14. Coruhlu, Yakup Emre & Yildiz, Okan, 2017. "Geographical database for object-oriented land division modelling in Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 212-221.
    15. Tao Zhou & Rui Zhao & Yulin Zhou, 2017. "Factors Influencing Land Development and Redevelopment during China’s Rapid Urbanization: Evidence from Haikou City, 2003–2016," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, November.
    16. Tom Bundervoet, 2006. "Livestock, Activity Choices and Conflict: Evidence from Burundi," HiCN Working Papers 24, Households in Conflict Network.
    17. Gwendoline Promsopha, 2018. "Risk†Coping, Land Tenure And Land Markets: An Overview Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 176-193, February.
    18. Salmerón-Manzano, Esther & Manzano-Agugliaro, Francisco, 2023. "Worldwide research trends on land tenure," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    19. Xianghuan Luo & Rohan Mark Bennett & Mila Koeva & Christiaan Lemmen, 2017. "Investigating Semi-Automated Cadastral Boundaries Extraction from Airborne Laser Scanned Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-23, September.
    20. Ferrol-Schulte, Daniella & Wolff, Matthias & Ferse, Sebastian & Glaser, Marion, 2013. "Sustainable Livelihoods Approach in tropical coastal and marine social–ecological systems: A review," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 253-258.
    21. Vien, Ha Thuc, 2006. "Land Privatization and Livelihood Diversification: An Examination from the Southern Uplands of Vietnam," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25426, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:95:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719320678. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.