RELATIVE ATTORNEYS' FEE WILL BE AWARDED IN COMPENSATION CASES DUE TO CONSIZES WITHOUT EXPROPRIATION AFTER 04.11.1983

In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals No. 2024/2567 E. 2024/9087 K. dated 25.11.2024: "In the case at hand, the immovable property was seized after 04.11.1983. The third paragraph of the Additional Article 4 added to the Law No. 2942 by Law No. 7421: "The price and compensation decisions given in the cases filed within the scope of this Law The relevant court and enforcement fees are determined as a lump sum to be paid by the defendant administration." The twelfth and thirteenth paragraphs of the Provisional Article 6 of the Law No. 2942, amended by the Law No. 6487; On the grounds that "the implementation of the regulation within the period after 04.11.1983 will harm legal security" and that it is contrary to the 2nd and 35th articles of the Constitution, 13.03.2015 tIt was annulled by the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 13.11.2014 and numbered 2013/95 Principles, 2014/176 Decision, published in the Official Gazette. There is no other regulation in Law No. 2942 regarding seizures after 04.1 1.1983. For this reason, immovable properties seized after 04.11.1983, which derive their origin from the decisions of the Grand General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals for Unification of Jurisprudence, dated 16.05.1956 and numbered 1956/1 Principle, 1956/6 Decision and dated 16.05.1956 and numbered 1954/1 Principle, 1956/7 Decision. Accordingly, it is appropriate that COURT AND EXECUTIVE FEES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES ARE APPLIED RELATIVELY IN CASES FILED DUE TO EXPROPRIATION WITHOUT EXPROPRIATION."Decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, No. 2024/4733 E. 2024/9948 K. Dated 17.12.2024: "There is no other regulation in Law No. 2942 regarding actual seizures after 04.11.1983. Therefore, its source is the Grand General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals Unification of Jurisprudence, dated 16.05.1956 and 1956/1." Since the court and enforcement fees and all kinds of attorney fees must be applied on a proportional basis in cases filed for seizure without expropriation, in terms of immovable properties actually confiscated after 04.11.1983, based on the Decision 1956/6 dated 16.05.1956 and Decision numbered 1954/1 Basis, 1956/7, the third paragraph of Additional Article 4 of Law No. 2942 "There is no possibility of implementation."Decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals No. 2015/24062 E. 2016/9935 K. dated 23.05.2016: "Since the immovable property in question was seized after 04/11/1983, a relative attorney's fee should be awarded."

Decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals No. 2017/9550 E. 2018/21536 K. Dated 21.11.2018: "Since it is understood that the immovable property in question was seized after 1983, it is not correct to ignore the fact that a relative attorney fee should be awarded in accordance with the Attorney Minimum Fee Tariff in force on the date of the decision in favor of the plaintiff represented by counsel."In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals No. 2017/35048 E. 2019/5321 K. dated 25.03.2019: "Considering that the immovable property in question was seized after 04/11/1983, it should not be thought that a relative attorney's fee should be awarded in favor of the plaintiff. Although it is not correct; since the elimination of this mistake does not require a retrial, the reasoned decision is It was decided that the phrases (1,500.00 TL) and (4,656.00 TL) in the 4th paragraph of the provision paragraph should be removed and replaced with the phrases (4,629.82 TL) and (7,785.82 TL), respectively, and thus the provision shall be CORRECTED AND APPROVED.

As can be seen, a relative attorney's fee should be awarded in favor of the plaintiff in terms of immovable properties seized after 04.11.1983.