Is It Necessary to Reconcile with the Administration in Legal Seizure?
Legal seizure is the situation where the administration intervenes in private property contrary to the law and this intervention violates the owner's right to property. In this case, the owner may request compensation for the damage suffered and the removal of the seizure.
So, is compromise mandatory in legal seizure cases? The answer to this question changed with a decision given by the Constitutional Court in 2019. The Constitutional Court annulled the provisions in the Expropriation Law No. 2942, which required application to the administration and reconciliation before filing a lawsuit in legal confiscation cases.
With this cancellation decision:
• Owners are no longer obliged to apply to the administration and attempt a compromise before taking legal action for compensation.
• Malik can claim his rights by filing a lawsuit directly with the administrative courts.
• However, compromise is always possible and optional. If the administration and the owner reach an agreement, there is no need to file a lawsuit.
Benefits of compromise:
• It shortens the litigation process and reduces costs.
• It enables a compromise solution to be found between the parties.
• It allows the problem to be resolved without going to court.
If agreement cannot be reached:
• Malik can claim his rights by filing a lawsuit in administrative courts.
• As a result of the lawsuit, the court may annul the illegal seizure by the administration and decide to pay compensation to the owner.